Peer Review

Background Information on the Peer-Review Process

The GYIL seeks to publish thought-provoking and influential articles that will advance academic understanding of international law. The peer-review process is intended to enhance the quality of research by providing authors with feedback on submitted materials and constructive suggestions for consideration and revision where appropriate. The review process is conducted under strict considerations of anonymity in order to ensure absolute objectivity. The Editors of the GYIL will never disclose the identities of reviewers to authors or other reviewers, nor will the Editors disclose the identities of authors to the reviewers. Final responsibility for decisions to publish remains with the Editors.

Guidelines and Procedures for Peer Review for General Articles

Reviewers

Reviewers are contacted in recognition of their expertise in the given subject matter. The review process is conducted completely anonymously. Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts for their academic rigor, relevance and adherence to the GYIL’s style and in light of the journal’s goals. A minimum of two reviewers are selected for each article. Reviewers are required to make any conflicts of interest known to the Editors and to uphold the confidentiality of the materials provided for review. Although reviewers make an overall recommendation on whether the manuscript should be published in the GYIL, the final responsibility for the decision to publish remains with the Editors.

Please refer to the ‘Guidelines for Peer Review’ for more detailed information.

Authors

Authors receive anonymous reviews of their submitted materials from at least two qualified reviewers who have evaluated the materials according to the Guidelines for Peer Review. Authors always retain their academic independence and are in no way required to incorporate th feedback provided by reviewers. When resubmitting their manuscripts, authors should prepare a brief response to the Editors explaining where changes were made. Should they disagree with a reviewer’s comments or decide against making the suggested revisions, authors are asked to justify their decision to the Editors who will take this into account when making the final decision to publish.