Peer review

The Editor-in-Chief, or the member of the Editorial Board who has been authorised to do so, has the right to refuse to start the peer-review process for any of the following reasons:

  1. the submission is seriously deficient in terms of formal requirements expected from scholarly work (such as references and footnotes);
  2. the ethics of scholarly work is violated (instances of plagiarism, listing of unverified information, grossly insulting and disparaging expressions);
  3. the length of the work does not correspond to the guidelines set for publication;
  4. the content is irrelevant to the journal’s subject field;
  5. the submission was already published by the same Author in the same, or substantially the same, form;
  6. the topicality of the work is low or nil; and,
  7. in cases of articles monitoring an election that has been held, data considered mandatory is missing. Should the submission be rejected, the Editor-in-Chief will inform the Author and list the reason(s).

Papers intended to be published in the category of ‘Studies’ are sent to two Reviewers. The review process is strictly anonymous; the Editor-in-Chief therefore reserves the right to leave out any contents from the paper that might allow the Reviewer to identify its Author. Likewise, the Editor-in-Chief may amend the reviews, should the anonymity of the Reviewers be threatened.
The Editor-in-Chief will communicate the result of the review process to the Author. Within the time frame specified, the Author has the right to refuse the publication of their work, if (a) they consider that the time between the acceptance of the work for publication and the publication date is too long, or (b) the work was moved from the category ‘Study’ to the category ‘Article’. The possible outcomes of the review process are as follows:

  1. Accepted for publication;
  2. Changes suggested: it is proposed to the Author to make some changes, though without this being a condition of the work’s publication;
  3. Revision requested: the Author is sent Reviewers’ comments, the accommodation of which is a condition of publication. The revised manuscript is sent to the Reviewer whose objections were stronger, or to a third person, for a new review;
  4. Rejected, future publication possible: the Author is informed about the reasons which led to the rejection. They may revise their work in line with the feedback given and submit it for a new peer-review process;
  5. Rejected: the Author is informed about the rejection and the reasons which led to it. Future publication in European Electoral Studies of the same, or very similar, work by the same Author is ruled out.
    Papers intended to be published in the category of ‘Articles’ are also sent to two Reviewers and the review process is the same as with ‘Studies’. For work submitted for the categories ‘Discussion’; ‘Review’; and ‘Review Article’, an abbreviated review process applies, establishing whether the submissions meet the requirements of scholarly work.