Instructions for Authors

EEQ publishes articles exclusively in English. Submitted articles should be original contributions and should not be under consideration for any other publication at the same time. Authors should clearly indicate at the time of submission if another version of the article is under consideration by another publication, or has been/will be published elsewhere, All submitted articles are subject to a rigorous peer review process, based on initial editor screening and double-blind refereeing by a minimum of two reviewers. Manuscripts for consideration should be sent to the editors at

Formal requirements:
- manuscripts of maximum 10,000 words (references, notes, and appendix included) written in 12 point font and 1,5 lines spacing;
- an abstract of maximum 150 words and 4-6 keywords;
- the number of footnotes (no endnotes) should be kept to a minimum;
- references and bibliography have to follow the Harvard citation style (Author & Date) - see the style sheet at the bottom of this page;
- authors should also include details of their institutional affiliation, full address and other contact information;
- all diagrams, charts and graphs should be referred to as figures and consecutively numbered. Tables should be kept to a minimum and contain only essential data. Each figure and table must be given an Arabic numeral, followed by a heading, and be referred to in the text. Tables should be placed in the text;
- manuscripts should be sent in a Microsoft Word (.DOC or .RTF) format.

The notes consist of four sections: 1) background, 2) campaign, 3) results and 4) conclusions.
1. The first section (background) provides a basic outline of the situation, discusses issues related to the initiator, and describes the ways in which the topic was introduced on the public agenda. A part of the section is devoted to legal framework, e.g. requirements for launching the respective form of direct democracy, the conditions of its validity etc. stated by the country`s law.
2. The second section covers the campaign and presents the camps involved in the debate (or collection of signatures in the case of initiatives) and the rationale of their positions. The authors should concentrate on the main arguments and themes aimed for mobilizing the public and the channels used to communicate with the voters.
3. The third section presents the results. The type of data depends on the form of direct democracy analyzed in the contribution. In case of referendums (including plebiscites) or recall procedures the official results are needed, i.e. the votes for yes and no option, invalid votes, turnout etc. When dealing with citizens` legislative initiative the authors should focus on the amount of signatures gathered by the initiator. This section should include a table with the respective data.
4. The last section of the contributions includes the conclusions where the authors discuss the outcome, its implications, and consequences for the further country`s political development.

Formal requirements:
1. The recommended length is approximately 2,500 words (excluding references) and exceptions can be made upon agreement with the editor of the direct democracy notes.
2. Notes should be accompanied by a short outline (max. 100 words) in which the author presents in five bullet points the major features of the presented direct democracy practice.
3. For references and bibliography, authors must use the Harvard citation style (Author & Date)
4. Footnotes should be kept to a minimum.

The DD notes are submitted directly to the editor in charge (Peter Spac: within maximum 6 months after the event has been concluded. 

Book reviews should not exceed 1,000 words per book. We consider this format to offer clear benefits to both the reviewer and reader. For readers it gives concision in reviews, and enhanced scope of coverage. For reviewers, extensive reviews allow them to better express their opinions on a book. Where two or more books are reviewed in parallel the length limit rises proportionately to 2,000 words for two books, 3,000 words for three books etc.

We recommend that approximately one third of the review (up to 400 words) focuses on what the author has set out to do in their book. Colleagues will find it helpful if reviewers can very succinctly communicate: what the book focuses on; what its fundamental arguments are; what approach the author adopts; what topics, countries or cases the author analyses; what kind of readers the book is aimed at.

The rest of the review (up to 600 words) should give views on points such as: Does the author succeed in his/her goals? Is the book innovative or noteworthy in theory, method or empirical work? Are there gaps or anomalies in its coverage? How plausible are the author’s arguments? Is the book well written?

The editors are keen for reviewers to make grounded criticisms and to benchmark books dispassionately against professional standards. But there is no need to cultivate either a “hanging judge” mentality or an over-praising style.

Book reviews and inquiries on the topic should be sent directly to the editor in charge (Theresa Gessler: