---

name: ci-submission description: Use when running the final pre-submission preflight for Critical Inquiry (CI) via Editorial Manager — format selection, the 9,500-word limit (including discursive notes and all bibliographical information), Microsoft Word manuscript, Chicago (17th ed.) footnotes with no works-cited list, separate 300 ppi JPEG/TIFF images with author-secured permissions, and the no-simultaneous-submission rule. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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

• Format chosen and its cap met (Article ≤ 9,500 / Response ≤ 3,000 / Review ≤ 500)
• Word count includes discursive notes and all bibliographical information
• Manuscript is a Microsoft Word file

Citations & apparatus

• Chicago (17th ed.) footnotes, numbered consecutively; no works-cited list
• Notes are lean enough to stay within the word cap

Images & permissions

• Images as separate 300 ppi JPEG/TIFF files (not embedded), with caption + credit line
• Permissions secured by the author for all published images

Policy & files

• Not submitted simultaneously elsewhere
• Original work; manuscript appropriate to CI's interdisciplinary remit
• Special-issue proposal routed correctly (if applicable)

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

• ../../resources/external_tools.md — portal, file formats, image specs, Chicago tooling
• ../../resources/official-source-map.md — official CI URLs behind every fact in this pack