Review Process
Submitted articles after a preselection by the editors will undergo a double, anonymous and independent peer-review process. The selected reviewers will be specialists in fields related to the article’s topic. They will neither be affiliated with the same institution as the author nor be members of the journal’s editorial staff. At the end of each year, one of the YARS® volumes contains a list of reviewers. The review criteria are specified in the YARS® Review Form. The editors encourage potential authors to refer to specific expectations outlined in that document when preparing their contributions to YARS®. As a result of the review process, authors may be requested to modify their articles according to the feedback from the reviewers. Authors must submit amended articles within the time limit set by editors. They should also include a cover letter detailing how they addressed comments and what changes were made. The editorial board retains a right to publish, reject or return an article for modifications.
Case comments follow the same editorial process as articles but have one peer reviewer instead of two.
YARS® has neither processing charges nor submission charges.
A different review process conducted by the editorial board applies to legislation and book reviews.
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS
- Use of English language: Please fill in the review form and prepare any comments in English.
- Responsiveness: Reviewers are asked to return their reports in two weeks (14 days).
- Expertise: Papers may be sent to a reviewer whose field is not identical to the subject matter of that paper. You do not have to be precisely qualified in a field to be a constructive reviewer. If you do not feel qualified to review the article, please notify the editor.
- Confidentiality: Please be aware you are receiving unpublished work, which must be treated as confidential until published. You must not disclose to anyone the papers you have refereed.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers shall have no conflict of interest. You are supposed to declare any conflict of interest or any other factor which may affect your independence. That includes papers written by a colleague or an intellectual antagonist. In case of a conflict of interest, please notify the editor.
- Intellectual Merit: An article should be judged on its intellectual merits alone. Personal criticism or criticism based solely on the political or social views of the reviewer is not acceptable. That is particularly important in the fields of antitrust and regulatory studies due to their diverging political, economic, and legal perspectives.
- Full Explanation: Critical or negative opinions must be justified by detailed explanation.
- Plagiarism, Copyright and Libels: If you suspect that a paper may contain plagiarism, that it might breach another party’s copyright or that it might be libellous, thus posing legal threats to the publishing house, please notify the editor, providing the relevant citations to support your claim.
Evaluation criteria
For articles:
Please score each of the evaluation criteria below from 0 to 10. If, for any criterion, your score is lower than 8, please justify your evaluation on the following pages. Please list any detailed recommendations for modifications and improvements on the following pages. Your ratings and comments will be shared with the author of the article.
Please use the evaluation criteria listed below:
| Evaluation criteria | Score (0-10) |
|---|---|
| 1. Significance of Themes
Is this a topic that needs addressing in YARS? Is the area investigated by the article: timely? Important? In need of addressing because it has been neglected so far? filling a gap in current knowledge? By addressing these themes, does this article make a significant contribution? |
|
| 2. Relevance of Themes
Are these themes relevant to this publication? In particular, does the article refer to the relevant regional or national context when dealing with regulatory and antitrust issues? |
|
| 3. Clarity of Thematic Focus
Are the articles objectives and themes clearly stated? Does the article address them consistently? Is the structure of the article clear, in particular is it divided into: definition of objectives, presentation of research methods, analysis and conclusions? |
|
| 4. Relationship to Literature
Does the article demonstrate an adequate understanding of the current literature in the field? Does it refer to both national and international literature? Does it refer to previous research studies, not only textbooks or practitioner literature? Does it connect with the literature in a way which might be useful to the development of our understanding in the area it addresses? |
|
| 5. Relationship to Jurisdiction
Does the article refer to the most recent or older case law from courts? Does it present an exhaustive combination of cases reflecting amendments and tendencies in case law? Is the opinion on the thesis presented in the jurisdiction expressed in the article? Is the article based, when needed, on decisions taken by administrative bodies? Does it connect with the jurisdiction in a way which might be useful to the development of our understanding in the area it addresses? |
|
| 6. Usefulness for Interpretation of Positive Laws
Has the literature been extensively analysed? Has it been used effectively for interpretation and application of positive laws, for proposing new possibilities of interpreting legal norms, as well as for providing readers with arguments supporting interpretation settled so far in practice? May conclusions be useful for courts and public authorities applying law and for addressees of legal norms? |
|
| 7. Use and Development of Theories
Does the article use theories in a meaningful way? Does it develop or employ theoretical concepts in such a way as to make plausible generalisations? Does the article contribute to a development of theories in public economic law, specially legal theories of antitrust and sector-specific regulation? |
|
| 8. Critical Qualities
Does the article’s content represent any standards of originality and intellectual independence of the author(s)? Does the article prove the author's trials of solving a particular theoretical or practical problem? Are conclusions de lege lata and recommendations de lege ferenda included in the article? Does the article demonstrate a critical self-awareness of the author’s own perspectives and limitations? Does it show awareness of the possibility of alternative or competing perspectives? Does it contain a section outlining practical implications of the article findings? |
|
| 9. Clarity of Conclusions
Are the conclusions clearly stated? How do you rate the cohesiveness of the article: do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper (such as literature, jurisdiction, and critical perspectives)? |
|
| 10. Quality of Communication
Does the article clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the reading capacities of an academic, tertiary student and professional readership? What is the standard of the writing, including spelling and grammar (bear in mind that the article should have been composed in British English)? |
|
| Total score (0-100) |
For more details, please refer to the articles’ review form.
For case law reviews:
Please score each criterion in the score range specified. If any criterion is negatively assessed, please justify your evaluation on the following pages. Please list any detailed recommendations for modifications and improvements on the following pages. Your ratings and comments will be shared with the author of the case law review.
| Evaluation criteria | Score |
|---|---|
| 1. Significance of the Case (0-15)
Evaluate whether the case is relevant to the Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies. Consider the timeliness and importance of the area investigated. |
|
| 2. Clarity of Thematic Focus (0-20)
Assess if the objectives and themes of the case review are clearly stated and consistently addressed. Evaluate the clarity of the structure. |
|
| 3. Relationship to Literature (0-10)
Determine if the case review demonstrates a thorough understanding of relevant literature in the field. |
|
| 4. Relationship to Previous case law (0-15)
Analyse if the review references pertinent precedent case law from EU and national courts and provides insights into case law trends. |
|
| 5. Critical Qualities (0-20)
Consider if the review includes a section outlining practical implications of the case(s) and assesses the originality and intellectual independence of the author(s). |
|
| 6. Clarity of Conclusions (0-10)
Assess if the conclusions are clearly stated and if they effectively tie together the other elements of the paper. |
|
| 7. Quality of Communication (0-10)
Evaluate the clarity of the review's content in relation to the technical language of the field and the reading capacities of the target audience. Assess spelling, grammar, and adherence to British English standards. |
|
| Total score (0-100) |
For more details, please refer to the case law reviews’ review form.
List of Reviewers 2023 List of Reviewers 2022 List of Reviewers 2021 List of Reviewers 2020 List of Reviewers 2019 List of Reviewers 2018
