Submission Preflight (ci-submission)
The last check before pressing submit on Editorial Manager (editorialmanager.com/ci/). CI's most
common avoidable failures are a manuscript over the 9,500-word cap (because notes were not counted)
and images that are embedded, low-resolution, or uncleared. Verify volatile specifics on the official
page before relying on them.
When to trigger
- "Submitting tomorrow" — last pass before upload
- Unsure which files / format Editorial Manager expects
- Confirming the chosen format's cap is met and images are prepared correctly
Process facts (verify volatile items on the official page)
-
Publisher: University of Chicago Press (journal founded 1974).
-
Portal: Editorial Manager (
editorialmanager.com/ci/); special-issue proposals may go to
cisubmissions[at]gmail.com.
-
Review model: peer-reviewed; reviewed by the editors-in-chief in consultation with the
editorial team.
-
Formats & caps: Article ≤ 9,500 words (includes discursive notes and all bibliographical
information); Critical Response ≤ 3,000 words; Review ≤ 500 words.
-
Manuscript file: Microsoft Word.
-
Citations: footnotes roughly following The Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., numbered
consecutively; no works-cited list.
-
Images: separate 300 ppi JPEG/TIFF files, not embedded; author secures permissions before
publication.
-
Multiple submission: not accepted — not under consideration elsewhere.
-
Fee: no separate submission fee listed in the checked submissions instructions; optional Gold
open access fee $2,500 (confirmed on the CI submissions page 2026-06-22), requested at
submission or no later than acceptance when relevant. Re-verify the fee before submission.
-
Abstract: no separate abstract requirement is listed in the checked submissions instructions.
Preflight checklist
Format & length
Citations & apparatus
Images & permissions
Policy & files
Anti-patterns
- Forgetting that notes count — a body-only count under 9,500 but a total over it
- Embedding images, supplying low-resolution files, or leaving permissions uncleared
- Adding a works-cited list or using author-date instead of footnotes
- Submitting to CI and another journal at once
- Budgeting for a submission fee that is not charged
Submission readiness pass for Critical Inquiry
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the object, theoretical stakes, interpretive turn, and permission/citation discipline; then test whether the manuscript addresses humanities reviewers who expect a strong interpretive intervention rather than an empirical-results narrative.
-
Primary move: Verify portal, article type, anonymity, declarations, files, data/code, and current source-map facts; return blockers before formatting advice.
-
Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next edit rows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly.
-
Neighbor test: compare against PMLA for literary-field reach, New Literary History for theory/history, Representations for historically grounded cultural analysis; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
-
Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.md for volatile rules and name any live-check fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Format】Article / Response / Review (cap met incl. notes? Y/N)
【Word count】total incl. notes + all bibliographical info
【Citations】Chicago 17th footnotes, no works-cited list? [Y/N]
【Manuscript file】Microsoft Word? [Y/N]
【Images】separate 300 ppi JPEG/TIFF + permissions? [Y/N]
【Single submission】not elsewhere? [Y/N]
【Next】await decision → ci-revision-and-response
Supplementary resources
