Skip to main content
×
Home
Instructions for Reviewers

Dear Colleague,

We would like to express our gratitude that you have agreed to act as a reviewer for Global Constitutionalism – Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (GlobCon). The journal seeks to publish outstanding scholarship on the topic of global constitutionalism, broadly conceived. Its pages are open to scholarship that enriches our understanding of the foundations, limitations and principles of political order, including through comparative and cutting-edge interdisciplinary analysis. The journal is interested in work that refers to constitutionalism as a template for empirical, conceptual or normative research on past, present and future political and legal practices, within and beyond the state.

These instructions aim to support you in your review by providing some basic information that we hope will prove useful. If you require any further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our managing editor Yoon Jin Shin (yoonjin.shin@wzb.eu).

How does GlobCon review manuscripts?

We seek to review and reach an editorial decision on manuscripts as quickly as possible. For this reason, a substantial number of manuscripts are rejected without soliciting outside reviews, generally because the submission is outside the journal’s remit, or is not of the high quality to which we aspire. Manuscripts that pass this first level of review are subject to an interdisciplinary double-blind peer review process. These manuscripts are reviewed anonymously by at least two reviewers drawn from around the world, typically including at least one reviewer from law and at least one reviewer from either politics or international relations. The ultimate decision to accept, invite a resubmission, or reject a paper is based on the evaluations of all reviewers.

What is expected from a review?

You have been selected as an external reviewer in light of your substantive expertise. We ask that your review contain two parts. First, we seek your recommendation regarding how to proceed with respect to the manuscript under review; specifically we seek you advice regarding whether to decline, revise and resubmit, accept with minor changes, or accept the manuscript. The second part of your review should consist of detailed comments to the author. These comments are often approximately one page long, although longer comments are welcome. In addition, reviewers have the option of providing a confidential comment to the editors. This comment will not be transmitted to the author.

What happens if the Editors ask an author for a revise and resubmit?

In the event that the manuscript is revised and resubmitted, we usually will ask the same reviewers to review the revised manuscript. Reviewers will be provided with the decision letter sent out to the author together with the revised manuscript. Please note that revised versions can only be accepted, declined, or accepted with minor changes. A second revise and resubmit will not be granted.

In which time-frame does a review need to be completed?

In order to facilitate a timely response to authors, we ask reviewers to generally conduct their reviews within two weeks, but in any case within 30 days of receipt. If you will not be able to complete your review within this time frame, please contact Global Constitutionalism immediately, and we will let you know if a delay is acceptable. Extensions can be granted in exceptional circumstances.

I have agreed to review but have realised that I cannot conduct the review. What should I do?

Please contact the editorial office immediately, and we will arrange for another reviewer. We would be grateful if you could suggest an alternative reviewer.

In which form does the review need to be provided?

All reviews must be submitted through our online submission system ScholarOne. You can either enter your review in the provided form or upload a document. In case you upload a document, please ensure that the comment to the author and any confidential comments to the editors are clearly marked as such and that your review includes a clear suggestion whether the manuscript should be accepted, declined, revised and resubmitted or accepted (in cases of an already revised and resubmitted manuscript we would ask you only to suggest whether to accept, decline or accept with minor changes).

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns.

Again, thank you for your willingness to serve as an external reviewer for Global Constitutionalism.

With kind regards

The Editors