For reviewers
Dear Reviewers!
Thank you for your highly qualified contribution to advancing the field of international law and ensuring the quality of publications in the "Eurasian Journal of International Law (EAJIL)" ("Еуразия халықаралық құқық журналы (ЕАХҚЖ)", "Евразийский журнал международного права (ЕАЖМП)").
Guidelines for preparing a Review
Information for the Reviewer:
- Reviewers are selected through a double-blind peer review process. All reviews are submitted anonymously; reviewers must not disclose their personal data or reveal the content of the manuscript or the review.
- The editorial board maintains the anonymity of reviewers.
- A reviewer must decline to review in the following cases: conflict of interest; the subject matter of the manuscript falls outside the reviewer’s professional competence; inability to submit the review within the recommended timeframe for objective reasons (business trip, illness, etc.).
- The review must be signed by the reviewer in the designated field of the "Review Form".
Purpose of the Review:
To provide an objective scholarly assessment of the submitted manuscript in accordance with the "Evaluation Criteria" and the "General Requirements for Reviewers".
Evaluation criteria:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope (manuscripts not aligned with the journal’s scope are rejected).
- Relevance and timeliness of the topic and issues addressed.
- Originality and scientific novelty (independence and uniqueness of ideas, research methods, results, and conclusions).
- Validity of the results (article structure (IMRAD); use of up-to-date legal, statistical, and other reliable data sources; references to recent scholarly works on the topic (within the last five years), including articles published in EAJIL; logical consistency and reliability of conclusions).
- Readability of the article (legal and academic writing quality; clarity of the text; ethical and professional tone; accuracy of bibliographic references; absence of plagiarism).
- Comments and recommendations.
General requirements for conducting a Review:
- Objectivity – impartiality, independence, and freedom from bias in evaluating the manuscript and making publication decisions.
- Constructiveness – scientifically grounded, useful, and necessary recommendations aimed at improving the manuscript.
- Confidentiality – non-disclosure of information regarding the manuscript and the results of the review.
Please pay attention to the following:
- Are there any signs of the use of artificial intelligence?
- Is the relevance and novelty of the research topic well justified?
- Do the abstract and keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?
- To what extent are the objectives, tasks, and conclusions supported by the content?
- Is there any plagiarism (use of sources without proper citation)?
- What recommendations would you provide to the author?
Thank you for your cooperation and your significant contribution to the development of international law scholarship!
The reviewer form is available at the following link.
REVIEW
of the article «________________________________________________________________»
Justification of the Conclusion:
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
|
Relevant |
|
|
Not relevant |
|
In the case of complete non-compliance with the journal’s scope, the article is rejected. If the article contains a partial analysis of international (or integration) law norms, it may be sent for revision.
Reviewer’s explanation:
- Relevance and scientific novelty of the article (the level of relevance to contemporary science and practice) of the research topic and the issues addressed therein:
|
High (a highly topical issue and a new approach to its analysis) |
|
|
Good (a new analysis of research topics previously addressed in science and practice) |
|
|
Satisfactory (with elements of relevance and novelty) |
|
|
Unsatisfactory (does not meet the requirements of relevance and scientific novelty) |
|
Reviewer’s explanation:
- Originality – the independence of new scientific ideas, and the uniqueness of the author’s findings and conclusions.
|
High |
|
|
Good |
|
|
Satisfactory |
|
|
Unsatisfactory |
|
Reviewer’s explanation:
- Validity of the obtained results – reliability of the materials, diversity of scientific analysis methods, and accuracy of bibliographic references to the most well-known scholarly works on the topic (including those from the last five years).
|
High |
|
|
Good |
|
|
Satisfactory |
|
|
Unsatisfactory |
|
Reviewer’s explanation:
- Structure and readability of the article – logical coherence and clarity of the text, adherence to the article structure (IMRAD), and legal and academic (written) language proficiency in presenting the material
|
High |
|
|
Good |
|
|
Satisfactory |
|
|
Unsatisfactory |
|
Reviewer’s explanation:
- Ethical integrity of the presentation – compliance with the ethics of scientific research.
|
High |
|
|
Good |
|
|
Satisfactory |
|
|
Unsatisfactory |
|
Reviewer’s explanation:
- Comments and recommendations
____________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION:
|
Possible conclusions |
Expert’s decision |
|
а) Publish the article |
|
|
b) The article may be recommended for publication after revision in accordance with the reviewer’s comments* |
|
|
c) The article is rejected** |
|
|
Full name of the reviewer, academic title, academic degree, position, place of work |
|
|
Reviewer’s signature
|
|
«_____» _____________2026
_________________________________
* In this case, the article is sent back to the author for revision. After receiving the revised manuscript, the Editorial Board sends the article to the same reviewer for re-evaluation.
**In this case, by decision of the Editorial Board, the article is either rejected or sent for re-review, which is permitted only once for a given article. In the event of differing reviewers’ conclusions (reject/recommend for publication), the decision on publication or rejection of the article is made by the Editorial Board.
