Writing Style (curranthro-writing-style)
A CA paper must be readable by an anthropologist outside its subfield and by CA's worldwide audience,
written with a clear argument and a reflexive voice, formatted to Chicago author-date in final files,
and disciplined to the article type's word cap. Because a Major Article anchors the CA✩ Treatment,
the prose must make the intervention unmissable — commentators and the editor should be able to state
your claim in one sentence. CA explicitly discourages overuse of jargon and asks that main ideas be
comprehensible to nonspecialists.
When to trigger
- Drafting the introduction, framing the intervention, or final polish
- Over the word cap and needing to cut without losing the argument or the ethnography
- Writing the ≤ 200-word abstract
- Aligning citations/format to CA house style before submission
Reach all subfields (and the world)
-
Front-load the intervention. By the end of the introduction the reader knows the question, the
argument, the evidence, and why it matters to anthropology broadly — don't make a generalist dig.
-
Minimize subfield jargon or define it on first use; an archaeologist should follow a linguistic
paper. Spell out acronyms; gloss technical terms. (CA explicitly discourages jargon.)
-
Comprehensible to nonspecialists. CA asks that main ideas be legible to readers outside the
subfield — a desk-screen and CA✩ requirement, since commentators come from across the discipline.
-
Argument-first, but keep the craft. Lead with claims; let well-chosen scenes and evidence carry
them. Avoid both dry report prose and description with no argument.
-
Write with care. Use inclusive language; represent interlocutors and communities with dignity
(avoid deficit framing); consider citational politics in who you cite and foreground.
Format to CA house style
-
Citations: CA (with UChicago Press) accepts free-format submissions; final accepted files
use Chicago Manual of Style author-date, with references listed alphabetically and not
embedded in endnotes. Include DOIs where available. Manage with Zotero/BibTeX.
-
Abstract: ≤ 200 words for Major Articles and Reports.
-
Preparation: word-processing file (
.doc/.rtf, not PDF); commonly 12-point, double-spaced;
endnotes (not embedded references). Figures supplied separately (see curranthro-tables-figures).
-
Review note: confirm the current review-anonymity expectation before deciding how to handle
self-references (see
curranthro-review-process / curranthro-submission).
Fit the word cap
-
Major Article 6,000–10,000 words (incl. references and endnotes); Report 3,000–5,000 words
(incl. refs/notes); Discussion/Comment ≤ 800 words including references.
- Tighten throat-clearing and literature dumps; engage the conversation, not every paper
(see
curranthro-literature-positioning).
- Choose the scenes and exhibits that argue; cut redundant description. Endnotes count toward the limit —
keep them lean.
- If the piece is short and sharp, target a Report rather than padding toward a Major Article.
Anti-patterns
- A subfield-insider intro that never states the all-fields intervention
- Burying the contribution under pages of description before the argument appears
- Heavy jargon (CA explicitly discourages it) or ideas a nonspecialist cannot follow
- An abstract over 200 words or one that hides the finding
- References embedded in endnotes, or a reference list not alphabetized, in final files
- Padding a Report toward Major-Article length (or vice versa, cramming a field-shaping argument into a Report)
Output format
【Intervention stated by end of intro?】[Y/N]
【Reads across subfields / comprehensible to nonspecialists?】jargon defined / acronyms spelled? [Y/N]
【Abstract】word count (≤ 200)
【Word count】Major Article 6,000–10,000 / Report 3,000–5,000 (incl. refs/notes)?
【Chicago author-date + alphabetized + DOIs (final files)】[Y/N]
【Care-ful, inclusive language】[Y/N]
【Next】curranthro-transparency-and-data
Supplementary resources
