Instructions for Reviewers
The first main purpose of a referee report is to help a journal editor to decide about a submission. Therefore, the referees should aim at writing a report that is addressed to the editor to help them reach a well-informed decision on the submitted manuscript.
The editors of EuJAP are strongly committed to the idea that the second main purpose of the refereeing process, whenever it is possible, to provide advice to authors on how to improve their manuscripts. It is thus expected that criticisms are expressed in a constructive and respectful manner.
Elements of a good report should include:
1. An outline of the paper with a special emphasis on the main thesis of the paper, and the main line of arguments for it.
2. A commentary indicating the merits and weakness of the paper regarding the rigor in the description of the relevant positions and arguments, quality of the offered arguments, and novelty of the contribution and possible impact in the relevant debate.
We currently operate a hybrid system in which reviewer reports can be submitted either by email to the editor or directly through EuJAP by logging into our OJS system. If you choose to submit a reviewer report via email, please use our reviewer report form, which can be downloaded here. Please write your recommendations on a submission (whether it should be accepted, revised, or rejected) in the commentary box reserved for editors.
Use the space for authors to write a more substantive report on the merits and demerits of the paper, and recommendations on how it can be improved (if the referees feel this can be done).
The editors reserve the right to edit reports that do not respect these guidelines.
For more detailed instructions on how to write a good referee report, the readers are directed to blog posts by Professor John Greco here and Professor Elizabeth Hannon here (this one is especially helpful for young scholars).
Norms for publishing with AI
The Journal does not exclude the use of AI generated text. However, all authors (including reviewers and editors) take full responsibility for its factual accuracy and the proper acknowledgement of sources. In the acknowledgement section of your manuscript or the title page (depending on the submission/publication stage) or in other kind of reports you must identify the AI that was used, and the extent of the contribution. For instance, ChatGPT (version or the date when the AI was used).
The contribution level of the AI can be defined as follows:
- negligible – means the AI only made minor changes to the manuscript’s style or grammar;
- modest – means the AI made important suggestions but was not the primary driver of the research or had an essential role in writing the manuscript;
- substantial – means the AI made several crucial suggestions that shaped the research and the manuscript could not have been completed without it.
If the contribution of the AI is “negligible”, there is no requirement to mention its usage during the submission or review and publication processes. However, for any other level of contribution, it is expected that authors will report the extent of AI usage. In cases where the AI contribution is “substantial”, authors, reviewers, and editors should provide a comprehensive description of the AI usage and its contributions in a narrative format.
