magnify
Home Editorials Looking Back at EJIL 2012 – The Stats

Looking Back at EJIL 2012 – The Stats

Published on April 4, 2013        Author: 

This is the time of year when we look back and collate some statistics on the publication record of EJIL.

Here is a new statistic. In a previous Editorial (‘Demystifying the Editorial Process’), I explained that the Editorial Board did not regard EJIL as a mere refereeing service of the unsolicited submissions which arrive week in, week out. We also like proactively to explore areas of international law, raise questions, set scholarly agendas typically by commissioned symposia. We believe that this approach is what gives EJIL its distinct identity. I ‘guesstimated’ that the balance between solicited and unsolicited pieces was more or less half and half. Here are the hard numbers for 2012:

  • Solicited pieces: 23 for a total of 361 published pages
  • Unsolicited pieces: 25 for a total of 588 published pages.

We continue to think that we strike the right balance; let us know if you think otherwise.

Now to our ‘normal’ stats for 2012. A brief reminder: data for published articles reflects submissions and acceptances which in part took place the year before.

Gender

The percentage of submissions by women rose in 2012 to 33%, 12 percentage points higher than in 2011. This shift was reflected in the percentage of accepted articles, with 31% of accepted articles by women, up from 29% in 2011, although the percentage of published articles written by women dropped to 23% in 2012. Given the higher submission and acceptance rates in 2012, we expect a jump in the published articles rate for women authors in 2013, the first part of which will reflect these higher figures.

Regional origin

Of the total number of manuscripts submitted in 2012, 48% of articles came from EU countries, 5% originated from Council of Europe countries outside the EU, 25% came from the US and Canada, and 22% from the rest of the world. The percentages for articles that were accepted for publication are: EU 57%; CoE outside the EU 6%; US and Canada 24%; rest of the world 13%. Finally, articles actually published in 2012 came from: EU 61%; CoE outside the EU 13%; US and Canada 16%; rest of the world 10%. Notably, these percentages show a welcome increase in submissions from the US and Canada, up from 8% in 2011, partly resulting from our efforts to encourage our North American colleagues to publish in the EJIL.

Linguistic origin

49% of submissions came from English-speaking countries and 51% from non-English-speaking countries, whilst for published articles in the 2012 volume the percentages were: English speaking countries 35%, and non-English-speaking countries 65%.

Print Friendly
Filed under: Editorials, EJIL
 

4 Responses

  1. Joost

    It’s a shame you deleted my comment. Again, I think the linguistic policy of EJIL is outrageous. Am I not allowed to say it here? …

  2. Dapo Akande

    Dear Joost,

    It was I who deleted your previous comment. I did so because the tone of the comment was uncivil and offensive. It contained snide remarks about that nationality of individuals, which were totally uncalled for. Comments with such a tone or including such ad hominem remarks are not only uncalled for, but are offensive and do not advance discussion or debate.

    We are a serious blog which is open to discussion, debate and airing of issues. However, we do not permit personal attacks or the promotion of personal agendas.The overwhelming majority of our commentators maintain decorum and respect when commenting on this blog. However, I have noted that the tone of many of your recent comments are unhelpful and the comments do not appear to be making serious points. The comment that I deleted crossed the line from unhelpful to offensive and that it was why it was deleted. This is the second comment of yours that we have had to remove. On the previous occasion we issued a warning to you about your comments. I am now issuing a final warning that any future comments of this nature will lead to you being banned from commenting on the blog. You should know that I tried to reach out to you using the email address you supplied but could not reach you. Hence the public nature of this statement.

    Your previous comment did not even say anything about EJIL’s linguistic policy. If you had indeed challenged that policy we could have had a serious discussion about it. Indeed, exactly one year ago, almost to the day, Joseph Weiler, as Editor-in-Chief of the journal, wrote an editorial about this very issue. It is an issue that the journal has thought about very seriously. Please re-read that editorial to see how much thought has already gone into this issue. It is legitimate to take a different view from the journal, and indeed others do, but your criticism should be expressed the right way.

    Dapo

  3. Joost

    Dear Dapoo,

    I understand you don’t like me. I also understand that my ‘snide’ remarks may have been unpleasant. But I’d hope they were so only to what I perceive to be the ‘illegitimate hierarchy’ which EJIL itself has been turned into.

    I thought the statistical exercise I did went along the same lines as my dear friend Joseph’s: testing geographical and linguistic data against one’s own view of what an European journal should be.

    The difference in our tones, and I beg to disagree with you, is dictated by ‘who’s upsetting whose susceptibilities’. This is how I see it and I wouldn’t expect my view to be shared by any of you.

    With my best wishes,

    J.

  4. [...] gender in the article.  Larry Helfer brought to my attention that EJIL does this. (see:   http://www.ejiltalk.org/looking-back-at-ejil-2012-the-stats/ [...]