Peer Review Process

Batulis Civil Law Review (BALLREV) applies a rigorous peer review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of every manuscript submitted to the journal. All manuscripts are evaluated according to the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, publication ethics policies, and scholarly standards in the fields of Civil Law, Contemporary Private Law, and Comparative Private Law.

Type of Peer Review

BALLREV applies a double-anonymous peer review process. In this process, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Authors are required to submit manuscripts without information that may directly reveal their identity in the manuscript file used for peer review.

Peer review is conducted by reviewers who are independent of the journal's editorial staff and who have relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their academic competence, relevant scholarly expertise, publication or research experience, prior reviewing experience where applicable, and suitability for the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.

Peer Review Process and Stages

The peer review process consists of the following main stages:

  1. Submission and Initial Editorial Screening: The submitted manuscript is checked for conformity with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, manuscript format, scholarly standards, publication ethics requirements, and basic editorial requirements.
  2. Similarity Screening: Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked for similarity using iThenticate.
  3. Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the editorial and similarity screening are assigned to at least two qualified reviewers with relevant expertise.
  4. Double-Anonymous Peer Review: The assigned reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript without access to the authors' identities, while the identities of the reviewers remain confidential to the authors.
  5. Editorial Evaluation: The editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and overall suitability of the manuscript.
  6. Revision and Reassessment: Where revisions are required, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments and revise the manuscript. A revised manuscript may be reassessed by the editor and, where necessary, returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
  7. Final Editorial Decision: The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or editorial board based on the reviewers' recommendations and the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is first screened by the Managing Editor and/or the assigned editor to determine whether the manuscript:

  1. fits the Focus and Scope of BALLREV;
  2. follows the Author Guidelines and manuscript template;
  3. has sufficient academic structure, clarity, and scholarly presentation;
  4. meets basic standards of academic writing, legal analysis, and citation;
  5. complies with the journal's publication ethics policies;
  6. is not under consideration by another journal;
  7. contains no apparent serious research misconduct or publication malpractice;
  8. contains the required manuscript components and declarations, where applicable.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic editorial requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected before external peer review.

The initial editorial screening is normally completed within two weeks after submission.

Similarity Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked for similarity using iThenticate. BALLREV applies a maximum similarity tolerance of 20% excluding bibliography.

The similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision. The editorial team considers the nature and location of the similarity, citation accuracy, quotation practices, legitimate overlap, previous publications, and whether the identified similarity indicates plagiarism, redundant publication, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other publication misconduct.

Manuscripts with excessive or problematic similarity, improper citation, plagiarism, redundant publication, or other indications of publication misconduct may be returned to the authors for clarification or revision, rejected before peer review, or handled in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy and Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies .

Assignment and Qualifications of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening and similarity check are assigned to at least two reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic. Reviewers may be selected from the journal's reviewer database, academic networks, or other qualified scholarly experts in the relevant field.

Reviewers are selected based on their relevant academic and professional expertise, demonstrated knowledge or experience in the relevant area of legal scholarship, scholarly publications or research experience, and, where applicable, prior experience in peer review. Reviewers must be able to provide an objective, independent, constructive, and timely assessment of the manuscript.

In selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers the suitability of the reviewer's expertise for the manuscript and seeks to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

Reviewers who have a conflict of interest, lack the necessary expertise, or cannot complete the review within the required timeframe must decline the review invitation and inform the editor promptly.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  1. relevance to the Focus and Scope of BALLREV;
  2. originality and contribution to legal scholarship;
  3. clarity of the research problem, objectives, and legal argument;
  4. appropriateness and adequacy of the research method or legal analysis;
  5. quality, depth, accuracy, and coherence of the discussion;
  6. accuracy and relevance of legal sources, literature, authorities, and citations;
  7. consistency with the journal's style, structure, and referencing requirements;
  8. ethical compliance, including proper citation and avoidance of plagiarism;
  9. clarity of presentation, organization, language, and readability;
  10. significance of the manuscript for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, or the development of law.

Reviewers are expected to provide clear, evidence-based, and constructive comments and recommendations that assist the editor in making an editorial decision and help authors improve the quality of their manuscript.

Review Timeline

The standard review period is approximately three weeks after the reviewer accepts the review invitation. The actual review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision quality, or the need for additional review.

If a reviewer requires additional time, the reviewer should inform the editorial team as soon as possible. The editorial team may extend the review period or appoint another qualified reviewer when necessary.

Where the review process requires additional time, the editorial team may inform the author through the journal system or the official communication channel.

Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, assigned editor, or editorial board based on the reviewers' comments, the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and conformity with the journal's editorial policies.

BALLREV applies the following editorial decisions:

  1. Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication without substantive revision.
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited revisions before publication.
  3. Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be reassessed by the editor and/or reviewers before a final acceptance decision.
  4. Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to reasons such as being outside the journal's scope, insufficient academic contribution, serious methodological or analytical problems, lack of originality, inadequate presentation, ethical concerns, or failure to meet the journal's standards.

Reviewer recommendations are important considerations in the editorial decision, but they do not automatically determine the final decision. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the editorial team.

Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and editorial instructions. Authors are encouraged to provide a response explaining how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for further assessment. The extent of reassessment depends on the nature and extent of the required revisions.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe, without prior communication with the editorial team, may result in the manuscript being withdrawn from the editorial process.

Confidentiality and Reviewer Conduct

All manuscripts submitted to BALLREV are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about submitted manuscripts to unauthorized parties.

Reviewers must conduct their assessments objectively and constructively. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers must provide clear arguments supporting their comments and recommendations.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, data, or other materials obtained through the peer review process for personal, professional, academic, or financial advantage.

Reviewers must not share the manuscript or its contents with other persons without prior authorization from the journal. Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless authorized by the editorial team.

Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting or undertaking a review assignment. Conflicts may be financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, collaborative, or competitive in nature.

A reviewer must decline the review when a conflict could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the objectivity or fairness of the review. If a conflict becomes apparent after the review has started, the reviewer must promptly inform the editor and refrain from further review activities until receiving further instructions.

Editors must also avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers whose conflicts of interest could compromise the independence or impartiality of the peer review process.

Publication Ethics and COPE Principles

BALLREV conducts its peer review process in accordance with recognized principles of publication ethics and refers to the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) , including the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers .

Accordingly, reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, assess manuscripts objectively, declare competing interests, review only manuscripts within their area of competence, provide constructive and evidence-based feedback, and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

The peer review process is intended to support fair, independent, transparent, and scholarly editorial decisions based on the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the manuscript.

Relation to Publication Ethics Policies

The peer review process operates together with BALLREV's other publication ethics policies, including the Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies and the Plagiarism Policy . Issues involving research misconduct, conflicts of interest, post-publication concerns, corrections, retractions, or other publication ethics matters are handled in accordance with the applicable journal policies.