The Network Law Review (ISSN 3050-452X) publishes two categories of content. Research articles are subject to external peer review under the process described on this page. Commentary, columns, book reviews and editorial material are assessed by the editorial team and are not presented as peer-reviewed research.
Initial assessment
Every submission is first read by the Editor-in-Chief or by a content editor. The initial assessment covers scope, originality, scholarly quality and compliance with the instructions for authors. Submissions that fall outside the scope of the journal or that do not meet its scholarly standards are declined at this stage, normally within one week, and no external review is sought.
External review
Research articles that pass the initial assessment are sent to at least two independent reviewers. Review is double anonymous. Author identities are removed from the manuscript before it is sent, and reviewer identities are never disclosed to authors.
Selection of reviewers
Reviewers are selected by the handling editor for their expertise in the subject of the manuscript. They are drawn from the editorial board, from past contributors and from the wider research community. A reviewer holds a doctorate or an equivalent record of scholarly publication in the field.
A reviewer may not be affiliated with the same institution as an author, may not have co-authored with an author in the preceding three years, and may not have any other relationship that would compromise an independent assessment. Reviewers are asked to decline an invitation when they identify such a relationship.
What reviewers assess
Reviewers report on the originality of the contribution, the accuracy of its legal and economic analysis, the adequacy of the sources, the soundness of the argument and the clarity of the writing. Each reviewer recommends one of the following outcomes:
Reviewers submit written comments addressed to the author and may submit separate confidential comments addressed to the editor.
Decisions
The handling editor decides on the basis of the reviewers’ reports. Where the reports diverge and the divergence cannot be resolved on the reports alone, the handling editor commissions a third independent review and decides in the light of all three. The decision is sent to the author together with the anonymized reports.
Revisions
An author asked to revise returns the manuscript with a response explaining how each point was addressed. Minor revisions are verified by the handling editor. Major revisions are returned to the original reviewers where they agree to assess the revised manuscript.
Timeline
The journal aims to communicate a first decision within eight weeks of submission. Authors are informed when a decision will take longer.
Submissions by editors, editorial board members and reviewers
A submission authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, an editor, an editorial board member, a guest editor or a reviewer is assigned to a handling editor who has no connection with the submission. The author takes no part in the assessment, has no access to reviewer identities, and has no access to the correspondence concerning that manuscript.
The handling editor is designated for each such manuscript by the Editor-in-Chief, from among the members of the editorial board who have no connection with it. Where the manuscript is authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, the designation is made by the longest-serving member of the editorial board available to act. The handling editor selects the reviewers, takes the decision and records it. The name of the handling editor is recorded in the file and communicated to the author in the decision letter.
These submissions are assessed under the same standards and by the same number of independent reviewers as any other research article.
Special issues
This policy applies in full to research articles published in special issues. The Special Issues Policy sets out the additional rules governing guest editors.
Appeals
An author who considers that this policy was not followed may write to the Editor-in-Chief. Where the Editor-in-Chief authored or handled the manuscript, the appeal is decided by a member of the editorial board who had no role in the original decision.
