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 Confidentiality: You are receiving unpublished work, which must be treated as confidential until published.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.
