Instructions for Jurimetrics' Referees

Peer reviews help the editors decide whether manuscripts are publishable, and, when appropriate, the reviews help authors improve their manuscripts. If you believe the paper under review should not be published, you may limit your comments to the reasons for your view. If you believe that the paper is of publishable quality, then your suggestions for revision are more important.

Your report and recommendation should be e-mailed to the editor who requested your review or to the Managing Editor at jurimetrics@asu.edu. If attaching your report in a separate file, please use Microsoft Word (or WordPerfect). The report will be cut and pasted as needed to transmit the report to the author while preserving anonymity. (Mailing a hard copy of your report to us on a separate sheet with no heading and unsigned is also acceptable. Our mailing address is: Jurimetrics, Box 877906, Tempe, AZ 85287-7906.) Any remarks you wish to make that you do not want the author to see should be separate from your actual report. 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. Some typical questions are provided below.

• 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, that 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. Those papers that are quite good or quite poor can be dealt with most easily. Those that require revision, but are nonetheless good enough to be worth revising, take the most time to critique.

Refereeing is time consuming, and the editors greatly appreciate the contribution of referees' time and efforts. We are indebted to our conscientious referees and thank them for their help.