This note considers the weaknesses in the voluntary and blind peer review process used by law journals in a number of countries including the UK. Using the editors’ own work as a case study it seeks to highlight the sometimes dramatic inconsistencies in peer review assessments. It outlines a new peer review process that will be piloted by the CJQ to make the process more transparent, and we hope more useful. The central idea behind the pilot is that peer reviews will be published anonymously alongside the article they are reviewing so that readers are able to consider both the quality of the article and the review/s of it.
Andrew Higgins and Inbar Levy, ‘The perils of peer review – can the process be improved?’  Civil Justice Quarterly 289.