EIoP - Refereeing Guidelines

Refereeing Guidelines

Note: This is part of the "old" homepage of the EIoP: from 1 June 2006 onwards, this site will not be updated any more as there is now a new EIoP site, based on a modern editorial software system. EIoP is available under the same URL as always:
http://eiop.or.at/eiop/

The new Refereeing Guidelines are available only if you are logged in as a referee in the new system.

Download this
document as PDF

The following points will be considered by the referees when assessing a manuscript submitted to the EIoP:

The EIoP publishes only the highest quality papers. Manuscripts should be of the standard required for acceptance in principle by the other major journals in the field, such as the Journal of Common Market Studies, the Journal of European Public Policy, the Common Market Law Review etc.
The content of the manuscript should be new in the sense that the main findings have not yet been published elsewhere by this author or other scholars in the field. An EIoP paper should add something new to the debate or at least present a topic in a new manner that leads to new insights. Pure summaries of a debate without adding a new point of view are not acceptable.
The EIoP seeks to publish academic papers, not “policy papers”. Normative papers that are targeted at a specific policy-oriented readership, and that make mainly policy proposals, are not acceptable. By academic papers we imply papers that try at least to accommodate different points of view on a subject matter.
The text (or the main parts) of an eligible manuscript should not have already been published elsewhere. The one exception is that papers published in traditional, paper-based working-paper series are eligible for EIoP.
The bibliography needs to be comprehensive and up-to-date. We do not accept papers with obviously incomplete reference lists. Papers need to be based on and to reflect the latest academic discourse in the subject.
Authors are responsible for language and style. In particular, non-native speakers of English are required to seek assistance. Referees are asked to signal if there are problems with grammar, style and spelling.

The referees are given the following options:

I am in favour of the publication without revisions ~ "publish as is"
I am not in favour of the publication ~ "reject"
I am in favour of the publication after major revision of the text in the following sense… ~ "revise and resubmit"
I am in favour of the publication after minor revision of the text in the following sense… ~ "publish after minor revisions"