Reviewer Guidelines

1. Peer Review Process

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editors will first evaluate whether it fits within the publishing profile of the journal and meets basic standards of quality. If the manuscript passes this preliminary editorial review, the next step is a double-blind peer review by two independent peers who hold a relevant doctoral degree or equivalent and are familiar with the actual topic(s). As a rule, one of the peers will be from the same country as the author or will be familiar with the professional tradition in the relevant country. Exceptionally there may be only one independent peer. In such cases, one of the editors or a member of the editorial board will be peer number two. The editors will make the final decision regarding acceptance/rejection of the manuscript. (NB: Peers do not receive payment for their reviews.)

2. Procedures for Peer Review

As a peer reviewer for Arctic Review on Law and Politics, we ask you to give us a general evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript and, in particular, comment on the following points:

1. The originality of the manuscript (is it an original manuscript?).
2. The logical coherence, structure, legibility and length of the manuscript.
3. The current interest, value and relevance, in general and in relation to the journal’s northern focus, e.g. does the manuscript advance new knowledge?
4. Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analyzed in a proper way, and whether the conclusions are supported by the sources and data presented in the manuscript.
5. Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodologically acceptable.
6. Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the journal’s editorial guidelines. (The journal’s Author Guidelines can be found here.)
7. Has the manuscript otherwise sufficient quality to be published as a peer-reviewed academic article?

Positive aspects of the manuscript should be emphasized. Any other remarks – including proposals for improvements – should also be mentioned.

Your review may be written as a separate evaluation, following the points listed above, and/or as comments made directly in the manuscript file. Either way, your evaluation should clearly state whether you:
1. Recommend publication,
2. Recommend publication after improvements, or
3. Do not recommend publication.

The peer review process is reciprocally anonymous at Arctic Review. Therefore, please be sure that your identity cannot be inferred from your review file(s) before you send us your review. More information about ensuring a blind review and instructions for anonymizing files can be found here.

We ask that peers complete their reviews within three weeks.