Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance
  4. Journal information
  5. Peer review information
  6. Review process
Journal Home
Review process

Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance upholds a rigorous and fair peer review policy. In the interest of transparency, we provide full details of our peer review workflow.

For each themed issue the peer review process is handled by a Guest Editor and is overseen by an Editor-in-Chief. Both commissioned and non-commissioned submissions are assigned to the handling Guest Editor, who will assess the paper for relevance and quality before sending it out for peer review.

All papers are double-anonymous peer reviewed by at least two individuals. Reviewers may include members of the Editorial Board though each paper will receive at least one external reviewer report. Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance is a multi-disciplinary journal and to ensure accessibility by multiple subject disciplines the journal will endeavour to seek a review from a subject expert and a review from another discipline for every paper. Reviewers will be asked to provide feedback on both content (quality of ideas, rigour of methods, fit with the journal’s aims & scope and fit with the scope of the issue, as outlined in the call for papers) and style (accessibility of writing). The Guest Editor will be responsible for assessing reviews and recommending final decisions based on reviewer reports. Responsibility for final decisions rests with the handling Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals

To appeal an editorial decision, contact the Cambridge Forum on AI: Law and Governance inbox, [email protected], and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed by the Editors-in-Chief and, where applicable, the Guest Editor. The final decision regarding your appeal will rest with the Editors-in-Chief.

Appeals should be based on rational arguments and should refer to a specific manuscript in question. Appeals must be based on evidence that either (1) an editor or reviewer made a significant factual error/a major misunderstanding of a manuscript, or (2) the integrity of the editorial decision making process was compromised. In general, only one appeal per manuscript per decision stage will be considered. 

New submissions take priority over appeals, so it may take a substantial period of time for the journal to reach a conclusion about your appeal.