Review Guidelines

These Review Guidelines form the basis for the language editing and content reviews of blog articles conducted by the editors. They constitute a specification of the Submission Guidelines for authors. Publishing the Review Guidelines is intended to help authors take the publication requirements of European Relations into account from the outset of the writing process.

1. Article Format & Length

• Does the article fit one of the Blog’s article formats?
  • News article (250-750 words)
  • Analysis (1500-2500 words)
  • Opinion piece (750-1500 words)
  • Explainer (500-1500 words)

2. Language & Writing Style

• Does the article have:
  • A catchy title (max. 50 characters)?
  • A subheading explaining the title (max. 100 characters)?
  • A strong introduction, a structured main body, and a clear conclusion?
• Is the article written in either British or American English, and is usage consistent throughout?
• Are there any grammatical, spelling, or punctuation mistakes?
• Is the writing clear, engaging, and structured logically?
  🡪If readability is impaired, changes are necessary. If not, the editor can decide to what extent the article can/should be improved with the author.
• Are paragraphs digestible with appropriate use of subheadings?
• If the text contains more linguistic errors than mere slips or typos, the author may be strongly advised to use a language correction tool (such as Grammarly, LanguageTool, Scribbr, etc.) before submission.

3. Tone & Objectivity

• Is the article written in objective and respectful language?
• Does it avoid:
  • Polemics, hate speech, or extremism?
  • Calls for violence or violation of laws?
  • Disregard for human rights or other high legal principles?
  • In case of extreme positions, the argumentation must be reviewed even more carefully!
• If it engages in critical analysis, is it well-argued and constructive?

4. References

• Are all claims that are not the author’s own arguments (facts not commonly known, data, quotations, paraphrased ideas, or other people’s arguments) supported with hyperlinks (1-4 words hyperlinked?
  Example: According to recent Eurobarometer survey data, public trust in European institutions has increased.
• When the same source is used across connected sentences, is it clear that the link covers them, and are new sources linked when the reference changes?
• Are references specific (no vague phrases like “Some have argued…”) and linked to identifiable authors or publications, or, if referring to broader discourse, illustrated with key examples of discourse utterances?
• Are original sources used whenever possible instead of another text referencing to the original source of the information? (e.g., if you’re referencing a statistic from an international organisation, link directly to their report, not to a media article summarising it)
• Do the links work?
• Is the linked content appropriate and helpful to understand the argument?
• Important: Does the linked source contain the information/fact/argument as claimed by the author?
• Are there any signs of plagiarism (false, missing, or sporadic referencing)?
• Reminder: Academic referencing, such as Harvard, APA, or MLA, or the use of footnotes, is not allowed.

5. Thematic & Structural Compliance

• Has the article been assigned a thematic category and article format?
• Is the article’s content relevant to the blog, i.e., a topic around Europe?
• Is the article linked to current developments for its relevance? 🡪Only if the topic lends itself to it; historical topics, etc., are not categorically excluded
• Is the article’s topic discussed comprehensively (within the author’s own limits set through the introduction)?
• News article:
  • Does the article contain actual news (a new development, event, or fact)?
  • Is the information current and accurate?
  • Is the reporting unbiased, avoiding subjective language, speculation, or one-sided framing?
  • Is there sufficient context for readers unfamiliar with the matter to understand the significance (without overloading with unnecessary detail)?
  • Are the key facts accurate, verifiable, and supported by appropriate sources?
  • Are multiple perspectives or relevant stakeholders represented where appropriate?
• Analysis:
  • Is the issue discussed in depth and with sufficient comprehensiveness?
  • Is the text understandable and accessible to a broad audience?
  • Is enough context provided for readers unfamiliar with the topic?
  • Is complexity acknowledged and carefully reduced—without oversimplifying or neglecting important nuances?
  • Does the analysis fulfil its stated aim (e.g. providing an overview, developing an argument, explaining or interpreting an observation)?
  • Is the reasoning coherent and logically structured through the entire analysis?
  • Important: Are the arguments supported by sufficient data and evidence, or is the data basis selective and insufficient to substantiate the interpretation of the observation?
  • Important: Does the analysis contribute original insight or interpretation, rather than merely summarising existing information?
• Opinion piece:
  • Is a thesis/an opinion clearly stated (already in the introduction)?
  • Is the opinion supported by arguments and evidence, providing a factual basis (referenced through links)?
  • Is the opinion within the broad scope of the criteria outlined under point 4? Is the tone appropriate (confident yet respectful, avoiding polemics or ad hominem attacks)?
  • Does the author locate their opinion within a (current) debate, aligning with and opposing others’ opinions?
  • Does the article offer originality of thought or a fresh perspective, rather than repeating well-known positions?
• Explainer:
  • Does the article have a clear topic? An Explainer should explain a subject comprehensively and from different perspectives. It should avoid narrowing down to a single research question (which would make it an analysis) and instead introduce and elucidate the subject as comprehensively as possible.
    Examples:
    1. What Is the European Stability Mechanism? Subtitle: Origins, Functions, and Its Role in EU Crisis Management (could cover historical roots (Eurozone crisis), institutional design, legal framework, economic function, and political debates)
    2. Understanding the EU’s Collective Defence Clause (Article 42.7 TEU) Subtitle: History, Legal Foundations, and Political Significance (could explore its historical development, legal-institutional anchoring, political implications, functional relevance for EU security, and comparison with NATO)
    3. What Is Realism in International Relations Theory? Subtitle: Origins, Core Ideas, and Critiques (could explain the historical and intellectual roots, relationship to other IR theories, main theoretical assumptions, variations (classical, neorealism, neoclassical realism), political and policy implications, and critiques)
  • Does the article go considerably beyond common knowledge to be considered non-trivial?
  • Is the subject explored in different dimensions, roots, and consequences: historical, institutional, functional, political, economic, social, international, legal, cultural, identity, … dimension [the ones applicable])?
  • Particularly suitable subjects for Explainers include, for example: institutions, laws and policy frameworks, theories, …

6. Use of AI

• Authors can use AI-powered tools for language correction, but not to generate parts of the text, as this raises questions about the originality of the author’s work.
• Some of the following patterns can (but do not necessarily!!!) suggest the use of generative AI when these patterns go beyond what sounds natural:
  • Stylistic: Generic, repetitive, or overly polished language lacking a personal voice or nuance.
  • Structural: Formulaic structure with even paragraph lengths, rigid intros/conclusions, and shallow argumentation.
  • Factual: Fabricated sources, vague data, incorrect references, or unverified claims.
  • Content: Superficial treatment of complex topics, outdated information, or unnatural neutrality on controversial issues.
• Such cases are discussed within the Editorial Board for a systematic AI and plagiarism check