| Thank you for your interest in the 2020 Global Contest for the Best China-Focused Cases. The online submission system will be accessible from September 1, 2020 at publishing.chinacases.org. The evaluation criteria now align more closely with international case library standards so that accepted cases can be used more effectively in teaching scenarios. We hereby present the case evaluation criteria, review process, and experiences of participants and reviewers from previous contests, so that entrants can better understand the rules. |
| |
| Note from the Chief Editor |
 |
| CHEN Shimin | CEIBS |
| As more and more schools and institutions have adopted and promoted case teaching and development in recent years, high-quality teaching cases and the Global Contest for the Best China-Focused Cases are gaining increased recognition. Given the noticeable improvement in the quality of cases submitted over the years, I believe this year's competition will receive more high-caliber entries. The contest aims to make case teaching more relevant and effective with quality cases. That is why we have adjusted the evaluation criteria to ensure that the accepted cases can better serve case teaching. We have also refined our three-phase anonymous review process to ensure its fairness and rigor: more than 50 business school faculty members versed in case development and teaching serve as our reviewers; eight business school professors work as chief editor and area editors; and five experts from Asia, Europe, and North America sit on the international expert panel. I strongly advise every potential entrant to study the submission requirements, evaluation criteria, and the list of common issues to avoid pitfalls and get fully prepared for this contest. |
|
|
|
| Evaluation Criteria |
| |
| Evaluation Criteria for the Case Body |
| |
 |
|
 |
| Emphasis on a classic or surprising China-focused story. Clear and specific business issues, challenges, or decisions that require students to analyze and make decisions using theories, concepts, frameworks, analytical methods, or tools. |
 |
Sufficient complexity in the case issues that go beyond the surface of the problems facing the manager(s). Emphasis on compelling students to analyze and make decisions through class discussions and debates. |
|
| |
 |
|
 |
| Sufficient information for the intended discussion of the case issues. Healthy tension, i.e. enough but not overwhelming ambiguity, to prompt students to think and analyze. |
|
Concise and logical writing with a case body of up to 15 pages, including tables, figures, and graphs (up to 12 pages if written in Chinese). An objective and neutral language that engages students' thinking but avoids any unfounded positive portrait of the protagonist's mental state or decision-making process. |
|
| |
| Evaluation Criteria for Teaching Notes |
| |
 |
|
 |
| Clear and specific learning objectives that are important for the applicable courses and target students. Logic assignment questions that match the teaching objectives. |
|
A clear and feasible teaching plan with an estimated time for identified topics and themes. A well-designed board plan if applicable. |
|
| |
 |
|
 |
| A detailed analysis of each question with the use of theories, concepts, frameworks, analytical methods or tools that offer insights and implications beyond the case company. Guidance on how the discussion might unfold and how an instructor should respond and manage the discussion flow, if applicable. |
|
Concise, logical, and easy-to-follow writing. A summary of takeaways if applicable. Detailed information on follow-up development if applicable. Necessary supporting materials helpful for others to adopt the case. |
|
| |
| Common Issues |
| The following list provides common issues from previous contest submissions to help entrants develop cases more effectively: |
| Common Issues with the Case Body |
| |
 |
Some cases only scratch the surface of the company's practices and challenges without any in-depth analysis; some only describe the company's development or simply commend its practices. |
|
 |
Some cases fail to present discussion or decision-making points, or the focal questions are too broad or simple to allow for discussion and analysis from different perspectives. |
|
|
Some cases contain too much information and present the conclusions that students are expected to reach only after class discussion. As a result, the case writing deviates from its purpose of raising questions to inspire students and generate discussion. Some cases provide insufficient information meaning students are unable to discuss the questions in the teaching note thoroughly. |
|
|
Some authors are unaware of the differences between a field-researched case and a library case: a field-researched case is developed based on the author's field research and company interviews; a library case is written with second-hand materials. For a field-researched case, the author must also submit a Case Content Confirmation Letter, including the seal of the case company (organization or institution) and signature of the personnel in charge. |
|
|
Some cases fail to take a neutral or objective position, make ungrounded assumptions about the company's internal situation or the protagonist's feelings and thoughts. |
|
|
Some cases are lengthy or poorly structured without clear logic; some are not carefully edited in terms of wording and phrasing. |
|
| |
| Common Issues with Teaching Notes |
| |
|
Teaching objectives are divergent, concerning multiple disciplines but irrelevant to the specific courses. |
|
|
Discussion questions are not aligned with teaching objectives and fail to reveal the teaching focus of the concerned subject. |
|
|
There is a lack of diversity in discussion question type and they are not sufficiently thought-provoking. For example, notes include too many "what" questions (students just need to repeat or summarize the facts contained in the case body), insufficient "why" questions (students are unable to analyze the reasonability of the company's practices with appropriate theories, frameworks, or tools to gain a deeper understanding of the case company and reach some conclusions of general significance), and too few "how" questions (that may cover a future decision or a review of the company's past decisions, through which students are guided to discuss and summarize from multiple perspectives). |
|
|
The question analysis contains theories hardly relevant to the case subject and unhelpful for case discussion. |
|
|
The case author fails to obtain permission from the copyright holder or clearly mark the source of information when using or quoting others' works (including but not limited to illustrations, tables, data, reports, theories, analytical frameworks and reference literature). |
|
| |
| Review Process |
| The case review process includes three phases. |
| Phase 1 |
October 2020 - January 2021 |
|
| The Case Review Committee of the Shanghai MBA Case Development and Sharing Platform will organize an initial review, a blind review and an area-editor review to decide whether a submitted case can be accepted by the Global Platform of China Cases (ChinaCases.Org). |
| Blind reviewers will rate cases according to the eight dimensions of the evaluation criteria, offer review opinions (accepted, accepted pending minor revisions, re-submit after major revisions, rejected), provide suggestions for case revision, and recommend candidate cases for award shortlist. Following the blind review, area editors will combine the input from blind reviewers with their own professional judgment to rate each case according to the evaluation criteria, offer final review results, provide revision suggestions, and recommend candidate cases for award shortlist. After the acceptance review concludes, case authors can check the review results and revision suggestions on the system and make corresponding revisions. Area editors will re-evaluate the revised cases to decide if they meet acceptance criteria. To ensure fairness of the review process, the information of the authors and their institutions will remain anonymous throughout the initial review, blind review, area-editor review and re-evaluation of revised cases. |
|
| |
|
|
| The discipline-based editorial board of ChinaCases.Org will select around six cases as First Prize finalists and around 10 cases as Second Prize winners. |
| Based on the review comments and recommendations of blind reviewers and area editors, the cases will be ranked by their weighted scores. Top-ranking cases will be shortlisted for awards. Each area editor will independently review and rate all the candidate cases (anonymously) and offer reasons for recommendation. After the independent review by seven area editors and the chief editor, the discipline-based editorial board will hold an award selection meeting to carry out a joint evaluation (disputed cases to be decided by vote as necessary) and select the First Prize finalists and Second Prize winners. |
|
| |
|
|
| An international expert panel will select one case from the First Prize finalists as the Best Case Award winner. |
| First Prize finalist authors need to submit the English version of their cases within the required time. Each international expert will independently review all finalist cases (anonymously) and offer reasons for the recommendation. After collecting the review results from the five international experts, the international expert panel will organize a video conference to discuss and select the Best Case Award winner. |
|
| |
| Experience Sharing |
| |
| Case Authors: clear and fair contest criteria and review process; constructive and detailed review comments; professional editing suggestions for case improvement. |
| |
| |
LIU Yang (University of Science and Technology of China) |
 |
I participated in the Global Contest for the Best China-Focused Cases for the first time last year and found the entire process very well-organized. The deadline for each phase was clarified at the beginning of the contest and implemented effectively. Renowned professors from home and abroad were invited to be reviewers, and they pinpointed the problems with cases, offering constructive suggestions to help us improve them. The revision and polishing services provided by editors were also very helpful. I have benefited immensely from this case competition. |
|
| |
| |
TAO Shigui (Nanjing Normal University) |
|
This is my third time taking part in the contest. What appeals to me the most are the following aspects: First, what sets this competition apart from other case contests is its mission of integrating a China focus with a global vision and blending theories with management practices, which, in my opinion, is exactly what's missing in China's case teaching. Second, the review process and evaluation criteria were fair and transparent. Third, the review comments from reviewers were very helpful for improving my case. Fourth, the editing support for the accepted case provided by editors further elevated the case quality. |
|
| |
| |
WANG Chongfeng (Qingdao University) |
|
Every case is like a child that we nurture with care, hoping it will develop healthily and find a welcoming place to give full play to its value. This is why we are eager to participate in the Global Contest for the Best China-Focused Cases. As a four-time participant, I have been impressed by the clarity and fairness of the competition process and evaluation criteria from case submission and winner selection to follow-up case revisions. I am very grateful for the insightful and valuable opinions from review experts that helped me considerably when improving the case. My gratitude also goes to the editors who made elaborate revisions to my case after the case library accepted it. "What's past is prologue." I look forward to participating in this contest again. |
|
| |
| Review Experts: fair and rigorous review process; constantly refined evaluation criteria; improving quality of submitted cases. |
| |
 |
The entire review process was well-managed. There was also a fair feedback and decision-making mechanism in place when reviewers' opinions diverged on the same case. I hope participating authors can develop their cases around complicated focal issues that stimulate discussion. The purpose of case teaching is to stimulate students to adopt different perspectives in the discussion and debate about a thought-provoking focal issue. To present this focus in a complex way, the case author should provide sufficient information covering various aspects of the case company. These include its internal and external environments, industry chain, market, competitors, and customers. In this way, students can dig deep into the case and stand in the shoes of the company's decision-maker to carry out an analysis. These are the important traits of an excellent case. |
|
| |
| I have been invited to serve as a reviewer for this contest several times. The contest has received cases of fairly high quality and I have also benefited significantly from the review process. All the cases have to go through several rounds of stringent and anonymous review, which ensures the fairness of the process. Reviewers will offer timely and feasible revision suggestions in detail, based on which authors can improve their case quality and writing skills, which is a highlight compared with other domestic case contests. |
 |
|
| |
 |
Starting from the first Global Contest for the Best China-Focused Cases, I have served as a blind reviewer or area editor in five contests. As an area editor, I have been impressed by how impartial and candid everyone was during the review discussion, making every effort to select quality cases according to the standards. After each year's review work, the discipline-based editorial board goes through the review process and criteria and sums up the overall experience to make the entire process more rigorous. My suggestions for participants are as follows. First, when selecting the case subject, keep abreast of new trends, but don't blindly assume that newer themes are best. The latest hot topics, in particular, should be observed with patience. Second, case authors should make good use of rich media resources and skillfully reprocess them for the cases instead of copying the original materials. Third, participants should write the case as an objective observer without bias. Fourth, they should develop teaching notes by drawing on their personal experience of case teaching to provide as much help as possible for teachers who may use their cases in the future. Fifth, participants should strive to develop strong and valuable cases that can stand the test of time. I hope we can support each other in studying China-focused issues from a global perspective and make progress in the development, review and use of cases. |
|
| |
| I have engaged in the review process of the Global Contest for the Best China-Focused Cases for the last five years, during which I have noticed significant improvements in two areas: the review quality of blind reviewers and the quality of submitted cases and accepted cases. The review committee seminar held before each year's contest facilitated communication and exchanges between reviewers and helped the committee optimize the review process and criteria. The area-editor review introduced in recent years as a strong complement to the blind review has strengthened the review model and ensured a more rigorous case evaluation. Consistent evaluation criteria and diversified scoring methods have contributed to a fair review process and better review quality. I hope contestants can pinpoint China's rapid technological transformation, the emergence of management models and issues closely related to Chinese culture, adopt unique perspectives and carry out profound analyses, to develop more excellent cases to support case teaching in China's business education system. |
 |
|
| |
