Jurimetrics Journal

Home / Jurimetrics / Referee Instructions

Instructions for Jurimetrics' Referees

Peer reviews help the Jurimetrics Editorial Board decide whether manuscripts are publishable and provide authors with valuable feedback to improve their manuscripts. If you believe the paper under review should not be published, you may limit your comments to the reasons for such a view. If you believe that the paper is of publishable quality, then it is important your suggestions for revision are more substantive and geared towards improvement of the manuscript.

Your report and recommendation should be e-mailed to the editor who requested your review or to the Managing Editor at Jurimetrics@asu.edu. Please use Microsoft Word if you are attaching your report in a separate file. The report will be cut and pasted as needed to transmit the report to the author, while preserving referee anonymity.

Any remarks you wish to make that you do not want the author to see should be separate from your actual report (e.g., in the body of the email providing your report in Microsoft Word form). Alternatively, you may clearly indicate in the Microsoft Word document that you do not want the author to see a specific comment. Referees should complete their reviews within three weeks.

Your comments should be specific and seek to answer any of the following questions that are relevant to the article you are reviewing:

  • Is the paper suitable for Jurimetrics' audience?
  • Is it a sufficiently interesting and original contribution?
  • Are there parts of the paper that are unsound, misleading, or dull?
  • Are there parts that are unnecessarily argumentative or unfairly derogatory of other authorities?
  • Are there elements of the paper that you do not feel qualified to evaluate?
  • Does the author give adequate citation to cases and authorities?
  • Are there parts, including footnotes, which should be condensed?
  • Does the writing require improvements and if so, where and how?
  • Are the figures and tables clear, understandable, and properly captioned? Are there more than necessary?
  • Do you recommend that Jurimetrics publish the paper?
  • If you do not recommend publishing, is the paper worth revising? If so, what revisions do you suggest?

Obviously not all these questions will be relevant to all papers.

Refereeing is time consuming, and the editors greatly appreciate your contribution of time and effort to improve Jurimetrics and the literature surrounding the nexus of law, science, and technology more generally. We are indebted to our conscientious referees and thank you for your help.