British Institute of International and Comparative Law - Publications - ICLQ

All reviews and review proposals should be sent via email to Gemma Parsons: g.parsons@biicl.org
Book reviews should be between 500 and 1000 words.
Longer book review articles which discuss more than one book covering a similar theme will be considered for publication, at the discretion of the book review editors. Review articles should have a maximum of 6,000 words.
Reviewers are asked to read the Book Review Policy detailed below before submitting reviews or review proposals.

----------

The books received list should be sent to the book review editors on a bi-monthly basis. Editors should return the list with either a selection of potential reviewers to approach, in order of preference, or an instruction that a book should not be reviewed marked beside each book listed. Books not for review will be sent to the Institute library.
Each person should be approached and given a submission deadline for their review (2 months following receipt of the book).
If each person approached declines, we should return to the book review editors for further suggestions.
The book review editors should also be regularly sent new publisher catalogues, which they should return with any books they would like ordered for review marked.

When an unsolicited reviewer, wishes to write a review for the ICLQ, they should provide their CV in order that their expertise can be assessed and any potential conflicts of interest can be identified before a review is written.
The potential reviewer should also provide a list of their interest areas so that a suitable book can be selected for them, which matches their area of expertise.
At the discretion of the book review editors, a writing sample may also be requested.
If the reviewer requests to review a specific book, we will accede to this, as long as the guidelines detailed in 2.1 and 2.2 below are followed (ie that there is no reason to suspect any conflict of interest).
If a PhD student is recommended by an academic colleague, they should be judged as an appropriate reviewer and be accepted, unless the colleague is recommending them as a reviewer for their own work, in which case they should of course be rejected.
Already written unsolicited reviews should not be rejected outright but rather judged upon their own individual merits, with the following safeguards to help minimize the potential for bias:

2.1 academic colleagues

should be asked to declare whether they have worked closely with the author, or whether there is any other potential conflict of interest.

2.2 Unsolicited reviewers, including PhD students

reviews should not be accepted where the reviewer is from the same academic institution as the author of the book.
as with 2.1, the reviewer should be asked to declare whether they have worked closely with the author or whether there is any other potential conflict of interest.

If the book review editors are of the opinion that the review provides a well-written and unbiased analysis of the book, the review should be accepted.

At the point of commissioning a review, the reviewer should be informed that publishing of the book review is subject to refereeing, and that their review may be rejected at the written stage.
All submitted reviews should be sent to the review editors for their comments.
Any comments/requests for revisions should be returned to the reviewer for consideration and the revised review should then be re-submitted to the editors.
If the editors feel that a review provides a well-written analysis of the book, and any points that needed clarification have been addressed, the review should be published.
Any reviews that are thought to be poorly written to the extent that they cannot be edited/improved by the reviewer can be rejected at this stage.
The institutional affiliation of the reviewer should always be included with the published review.