Peer reviewers keep the quality, rigour and ethics of the CLRS Journal of Global Justice & Governance. These guidelines, in line with the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), set out what the journal asks of its reviewers in its double-blind review.
The reviewer’s role
Reviewers are independent experts who assess the quality, originality and relevance of a manuscript to global justice and global governance; give the authors constructive and unbiased comments to improve their work; and help the editors decide whether to accept, revise or reject it. The reviewers advise and the editors decide.
What the journal asks of reviewers
- Objectivity: judge the paper on its intellectual merit, its legal accuracy and its fit with the journal’s aims and scope, without regard to who the authors might be.
- Constructive comment: give detailed, respectful and specific comments, balancing criticism with encouragement.
- Timeliness: send the report by the date given in the invitation, and tell the editors at once if it will be late.
- Thoroughness: assess every part of the paper: the coherence of its argument, the quality of its evidence and its contribution to scholarship.
Ethical standards
- Confidentiality: treat the manuscript as confidential. Do not share it, discuss it or use anything in it before it is published, and do not put it, or any part of it, into an AI tool. Do not use an AI tool to assess the paper or to write your report; a spelling or grammar check of your own words is acceptable.
- Anonymity: do not try to identify the authors, and do not reveal your own identity in the report.
- Conflicts of interest: decline the invitation if you have a personal, professional or financial connection with the authors or the subject that could affect your judgement, such as co-authorship or a shared institution, and tell the editors.
- Concerns: if you suspect plagiarism, falsified material or another breach of ethics, tell the editors with the evidence, for example “this section follows article X closely”. Do not investigate it yourself, and never contact the authors.
- Fairness: give an impartial review, free from bias or prejudice.
Accepting an invitation
Each invitation comes by email, with a link to the reviewer area of this site. Please accept or decline promptly, and decline if the paper is outside your expertise or you have a conflict of interest, so that the editors can invite someone else.
What to assess
- Relevance: does the paper contribute to the study of global justice or global governance?
- Originality: does it offer new insight within international law?
- Clarity: is the argument well structured, coherent and readable?
- Evidence: are its claims supported by credible, accurately cited sources, such as cases and treaties?
- Rigour: is its method or analysis sound?
- Impact: does it advance academic or practical discussion in the field?
Writing the report
- Begin with a short summary of the paper’s main points, to show how you have read it.
- Note its particular strengths, for example “the analysis of the Court’s jurisdiction is thorough and well supported”.
- Explain its weaknesses with examples, for example “the discussion of climate litigation does not engage with recent case law”.
- Suggest how it could be improved.
- Keep the tone professional and courteous, even when you recommend rejection.
- Recommend acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions or rejection, with your reasons.
The report form has two parts: comments for the authors, which are passed on without your name, and confidential comments for the editors, for example about an ethical concern.
Recognition
Every reviewer receives a certificate of reviewing when the report is submitted.
Help
For any question about a review, write to editor.jgjg@academyclrs.org with the subject “Reviewer query”. The Peer review policy and the Publication ethics policy give more detail, and COPE’s guidance for peer reviewers is available at publicationethics.org.