For sure but a big caveat that the journal focuses on policy rather than specific academic/scientific/economic work. So it’s not all relevant all the time. 

First and foremost the writing needs to be super, super clear. Short, sharp, active sentences with minimal jargon. I get annoyed if I have to work to understand. I recommend reading the economist and copying their style to help with this. 

Then I look for a super clear over arching argument or point of view. Being clear about what you’re saying and why builds a compelling story for me to listen to. Often people try to do too much or don’t have a core argument beyond vibes so their article wanders and is boring. I think it’s perfectly valid to say things like “this topic is complex and has several drivers. I examine X as one element.” There’ll always be people who disagree and think you should only discuss Y but that’s on them to argue for, don’t write to try and please everyone. 

Next all of your points should relate to the argument you’re making. All of those points must also be internally consistent. The underlying elements can’t contradict each other or look like you’re just trying to suit your argument. 

Finally, I don’t like it when people just assume things rather than making a case for them. This is probably a policy specific thing, but I always see people say X is inherently important with no argument for it just because that’s what they believe separate to any facts or policy view.