AJIL uses a double anonymous model of peer review. All content is subject to a double anonymous peer review with the exception of Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law, International Decisions, Book Reviews, Review Essays and Letters to the Editor which are reviewed by members of the editorial team. Essays publishing as part of an Agora are also subject to double anonymous peer review.

AJIL Unbound material is reviewed by members of the editorial team.

Resources 

Introductory resources for peer reviewers can be found on Cambridge Core here.

Ethics

Guidance on ethical peer review can be found on Cambridge Core here.

Appeals

Appeals by authors of editorial decisions will only be considered if they refer to a specific manuscript and 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. 

 To appeal an editorial decision, contact the Editors-in-Chief and specify the reason for your appeal. Your appeal will be reviewed and the final decision regarding your appeal will rest with the Editors-in-Chief. 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.