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.
The reviewer report form 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).