---
name: curranthro-writing-style
description: Use when drafting or polishing a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript so it reads across all subfields for a worldwide audience, follows CA house style (free-format accepted; final files use Chicago author-date), fits the article-type word caps (Major Article 6,000–10,000 words; Report 3,000–5,000; abstract ≤ 200 words), and uses clear, jargon-light, inclusive language. Tightens prose and format; it does not invent content.
---

# 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)

1. **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.
2. **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.)
3. **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.
4. **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.
5. **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

- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — word/abstract caps, Chicago author-date, jargon/nonspecialist guidance
- [`../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md`](../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md) — before→after CA-style introduction