About the Review
Established in 1869, the International Review of the Red Cross is a peer-reviewed, academic journal produced by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and published by Cambridge University Press. The Review's audience includes governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, humanitarian practitioners, academics, the media and all those interested in humanitarian issues.
Driven by a desire to examine international humanitarian law, policy and action in a multi-disciplinary way, the journal hosts contributions from various fields, such as law, political science, history, sociology, psychology and so on. Past issues of the Review are available to consult in the section below. To find articles or issues of the Review prior to 2004, please consult the Digital Archives of the journal, available upon subscription on Cambridge University Press.
The Review publishes three issues per year, each focused on a specific topic related to international humanitarian law, policy and action. The journal is multidisciplinary and welcomes different types of contributions: submissions on specified topics, contributions on themes which are not related to the main topic addressed by the edition in which they appear. These may be based on recurring themes that appear across various issues of the journal, replies to the content featured in the previous issues of the Review (debates, articles and opinion notes), and book reviews.
The anonymous peer-review process is there to assist the editorial team in making an objective critical evaluation of the manuscripts we receive for publication and to improve the quality of articles published in the Review through constructive comments and suggestions. We hope that the guidelines below will assist our peer reviewers in preparing helpful reviews and we are grateful for the time and commitment they devote to this.
Topic and title
- Has the author put forth an interesting problem or question? Does the problem seem too broad or too narrow? Does it fit with the rest of the proposed topics in the journal? If not, how might the author narrow or broaden the problem/question?
- Do you as a reader care about this problem or question? If not, why not?
- Is the title of the article adequate? Does it convey well the content of the article? Is it catchy? If not – would you suggest a reformulation?
- Is the topic well researched and referenced? Are there important references to the literature on this subject missing? Please point them out.
- Is the information presented accurate? If there are factual/legal inaccuracies, please point them out.
- Is the thesis/question/problem of the article novel and relevant to the overall theme of this issue of the Review?
Structure and argumentation
- Does the author formulate a clear thesis/question/problem at the beginning of the article, and is this developed in the article?
- Does the structure make sense? What works well, and what works less well?
- Has the author made smooth transitions between the different parts/sections of the article? Are some sections too long/too short, or irrelevant? Please point them out.
- Is the flow of the arguments logical? Are the connections between arguments logical? If not, why not?
- Does the author provide sufficient support for each point? If not, can you think of more pertinent or persuasive examples?
- Does the author take sufficiently into account other perspectives that exist on the topic? Is the argumentation thorough? If not, what more can be added?
Language and style
- Does the introduction engage you? If not, why not?
- Is the language of the article vivid and clear? Is it grammatically correct? Are the sentences clear and easy to read? What can be improved?
Deadline for peer reviews: two weeks from receipt of document.