Review process
Submitted articles after a preselection by the editors will undergo a double, anonymous and independent peer-review process. The reviewers will be appointed by the editors among specialists in fields related to the topic of the article. The reviewers will not be members of the journal’s editorial staff and will not be affiliated with the same institution as the author. The list of reviewers is published at the end of each year in one of YARS® volumes. Separate review criteria and processes have been adopted for legal and economic articles. The review criteria are specified in the YARS® Review Form. The editors encourage potential authors to refer to specific expectations, outlined in that document when preparing their contributions to YARS®. As a result of the review process, authors may be expected to modify their articles according to the recommendations of the reviewers. Amended articles should be submitted within the time limit set by the editors. Authors may be expected by the editor(s) to attach a cover letter explaining how the comments were addressed and the changes made. Editorial board retains a right to publish, to reject or to return an article for modifications.
YARS® has neither processing charges nor submission charges.
A different review process conducted by the editorial board applies to reviews of case-law, legislation and books.
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
1. Use of English language: Please fill in the review form and prepare any comments in English. This will facilitate the work of our editors and enable us to pass your comments directly to the author.
2. Responsiveness: Reviewers are asked to return their reports within two weeks (14 days).
3. Expertise: Papers are not always sent to a reviewer whose field is identical to the subject matter of that paper. You do not have to be precisely qualified in a field to be a constructive reviewer. If you do not feel qualified to review the article, please return it to the editor promptly.
4. Confidentiality: You are receiving unpublished work, which must be treated as confidential until published. You must not disclose to anyone the papers you have refereed.
5. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers shall have no conflict of interest. You are supposed to declare any conflict of interest or any other factor which may affect your independence – it includes papers written by a colleague or an intellectual antagonist. In case of conflict of interest, please notify the editor.
6. Intellectual Merit: An article should be judged on its intellectual merits alone. Personal criticism or criticism based solely on the political or social views of the reviewer is not acceptable. This is particularly important in the fields of antitrust and regulatory studies, with their diverging political, economic and legal perspectives.
7. Full Explanation: Critical or negative opinions must be justified by detailed evidence, with the quotation from the article.
8. Plagiarism, Copyright and Libels: If you suspect that a paper may contain plagiarism, that it might breach another party’s copyright or that it might be libellous thus posing legal threats to the publishing house, you should notify the editor, providing the relevant citations to support your claim.
Rating
Please score each item from 0 to 10. If for any criterion, your score is lower than 8, please justify your evaluation on the following pages. Please list any detailed recommendations for modifications and improvements on the following pages. Your ratings and comments will be shared with the author of the article.
Please use one of the below sets of evaluation criteria:
For articles in economics and management:
| Evaluation criteria | Score (0-10) |
| 1. Significance of Themes Is this a topic that needs addressing in Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies? Is the area investigated by the article: timely? important? in need of addressing because it has been neglected so far? filling a gap in current knowledge? By addressing these themes, does this article make a useful contribution? Is it itself significant? |
|
| 2. Relevance of Themes Are these themes relevant to this publication? |
|
| 3. Clarity of Thematic Focus Are the articles objectives and themes clearly stated? Does the article address them consistently? Is the structure of the article clear, in particular is it divided into: definition of objectives, presentation of research methods, analysis and conclusions? |
|
| 4. Relationship to Literature Does the article demonstrate an adequate understanding of the current literature in the field? Does it refer to previous research studies, not only textbooks or practitioner literature? Does it connect with the literature in a way which might be useful to the development of our understanding in the area it addresses? |
|
| 5. Research Design and Data Does the article present an original research (it could be both empirical study, as well as adequately structured literature review)? Has the research, or equivalent intellectual work upon which the article is based, been well designed? Does the article demonstrate adequate use of evidence, informational input or other intellectual raw materials in support of its case? |
|
| 6. Data Analysis and Use of Data Has the data been extensively analyzed? Has the data been used effectively to advance the themes that the paper sets out to address? |
|
| 7. Use of Theory Does the article use theory in meaningful way? Does it develop or employ theoretical concepts in such a way as to make plausible generalisations? |
|
| 8. Critical Qualities Does the article demonstrate a critical self-awareness of the author’s own perspectives and limitations? Does it show awareness of the possibility of alternative or competing perspectives? Does it contain a section outlining practical implications of the article findings? |
|
| 9. Clarity of Conclusions Are the conclusions clearly stated? How do you rate the cohesiveness of the article: do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper (such as theory, data and critical perspectives)? |
|
| 10. Quality of Communication Does the article clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the reading capacities of an academic, tertiary student and professional readership? What is the standard of the writing, including spelling and grammar (please bear in mind that the article should have been composed in British English)? |
|
| Total score (0-100) |
For articles in law:
| Evaluation criteria | Score (0-10) |
| 1. Significance of Themes Is this a topic that needs addressing in Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies? Is the area investigated by the article: timely? important? in need of addressing because it has been neglected so far? filling a gap in current knowledge? By addressing these themes, does this article make a useful contribution? Is it itself significant? |
|
| 2. Relevance of Themes Are these themes relevant to this publication? |
|
| 3. Clarity of Thematic Focus Are the articles objectives and themes clearly stated? Does the article address them consistently? Is the structure of the article clear, in particular is it divided into: definition of objectives, presentation of research methods, analysis and conclusions? |
|
| 4. Relationship to Literature Does the article demonstrate an adequate understanding of the current literature in the field? Does it refer to previous research studies, not only textbooks or practitioner literature? Does it connect with the literature in a way which might be useful to the development of our understanding in the area it addresses? |
|
| 5. Relationship to Jurisdiction Does the article refer to the most recent or older case law from courts ? Does it present an exhaustive (regarding its scope) combination of cases reflecting amendments and tendencies in case law? Is the opinion on the thesis presented in the jurisdiction expressed in the article? Is the article based, when needed, on decisions taken by administrative bodies? Does it connect with the jurisdiction in a way which might be useful to the development of our understanding in the area it addresses? |
|
| 6. Usefulness for Interpretation of Positive Laws Has the literature and jurisdiction been extensively analyzed? Have them been used effectively for interpretation and application of positive laws, for proposing new possibilities of interpreting legal norms, as well as for providing readers with arguments supporting interpretation settled so far in practice? May conclusions be useful for courts and public authorities applying law and for addressees of legal norms? |
|
| 7. Use and Development of Theories Does the article use theories in meaningful way? Does it develop or employ theoretical concepts in such a way as to make plausible generalisations? Does the article contribute to a development of theories in public economic law, specially legal theories of antitrust and sector-specific regulation? |
|
| 8. Critical Qualities Does the article’s content represent any standards of originality and intellectual independence of the author(s)? Does the article prove author’s trials of solving a particular theoretical or practical problem? Are conclusions de lege lata and recommendations de lege ferenda included in the article? Does the article demonstrate a critical self-awareness of the author’s own perspectives and limitations? Does it show awareness of the possibility of alternative or competing perspectives? Does it contain a section outlining practical implications of the article findings? |
|
| 9. Clarity of Conclusions Are the conclusions clearly stated? How do you rate the cohesiveness of the article: do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper (such as literature, jurisdiction, and critical perspectives)? |
|
| 10. Quality of Communication Does the article clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the reading capacities of an academic, tertiary student and professional readership? What is the standard of the writing, including spelling and grammar (bear in mind that the article should have been composed in British English)? |
|
| Total score (0-100) |
RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of the above evaluation, my recommendation is as follows (mark with ‘X’):
[ ] ACCEPT
[ ] ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS
[ ] RESUBMIT WITH MAJOR REVISIONS
[ ] REJECT
As a guide, the following are indicative score ranges:
- Accept (without qualification): 75-100%
- Accept with minor revisions: 60-75%
- Resubmit after major revisions: 40-60%
- Reject: Below 40%
COMMENTS
If for any criterion, your score is lower than 8, please justify your evaluation below. Please list any detailed recommendations for modifications and improvements. Your ratings and comments will be shared with the article author.
