Illustrated below is the evaluation rubric C&C editors will use to review applications:

Contribution to Existing Knowledge

  • Does the author clearly explain what makes the topic important?
  • Has the author omitted any relevant and important topics?
  • Does the author dedicate space to unnecessary topics or inappropriate sources?
  • Are concepts accurately tied to their sources?
  • Does the review synthesize, rather than summarize, findings of the literature?
  • Does the review identify weaknesses with existing research?

Theoretical Richness

  • Are the author’s hypotheses and theory clear?
  • Does the author identify all variables of interest and exclude trivial variables?
  • Does the hypothesis address issues identified in the literature review?
  • Is the argument original, insightful, plausible, and ambitious?
  • Are models described in a thorough but easily understandable way?

Methodological Strength

  • Is the method of analysis appropriate for the data?
  • Are variables operationalized in a reliable, valid, and justifiable manner?
  • Are cases and samples selected with a sound and sufficiently described method?
  • Is evidence from reliable sources?
  • Does the author identify and defend assumptions behind the analysis?
  • Is supporting evidence specific enough to exclude rival hypotheses?

Soundness of Conclusions

  • Does the author’s evidence support the conclusion?
  • Has the author convincingly addressed weaknesses and alternative explanations?
  • Do conclusions extrapolate beyond the data to suggest more general patterns?
  • Does the author identify avenues for further research?

Organization and Readability

  • Are the author’s thoughts well written and easy to understand?
  • Does the paper contain the standard sections of an academic article (abstract, introduction, literature review, study design, analysis, and conclusions)?
  • Does the introduction accurately explain the argument and structure of the paper?
  • Does the conclusion summarize and discuss the argument and findings?
  • Are there any sections that are too long or too short?

Technical Requirements

  • Does the paper follow the Chicago Manual of Style using parenthetical citations?
  • Does the paper follow Clocks and Clouds submission guidelines?
  • Are there any spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors?