Illustrated below is the evaluation rubric C&C reviewers and editors will use to review submissions.
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?