Peer Review Process

1. Type of Peer Review

BALLREV applies a double-anonymous peer review system. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the peer review process.

Authors must ensure that the manuscript file prepared for review does not directly disclose their identities. Identifying information should be removed from the manuscript text and document properties where applicable. Author names, affiliations, and other identifying information must be provided through the designated metadata fields in the journal's submission system.

Reviewers must assess manuscripts independently and objectively. The double-anonymous process is intended to reduce potential bias and support fair evaluation based on scholarly merit. Authors and reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact one another regarding a manuscript under review.

↑ Back to Top

2. Overview of the Peer Review Process

The editorial and peer review process consists of the following stages:

1. Manuscript submission: Authors submit their manuscripts through the BALLREV online journal system and provide the required metadata, declarations, and supporting documents.
2. Initial editorial screening: The Managing Editor and/or assigned editor checks the manuscript's relevance, completeness, format, basic scholarly quality, and compliance with the journal's requirements.
3. Similarity screening: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are checked using iThenticate.
4. Reviewer selection and assignment: Eligible manuscripts are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript, in accordance with the applicable reviewer-number policy.
5. Independent peer review: Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript against the journal's review criteria and submit their reports and recommendations to the editor.
6. Editorial evaluation: The editor considers the reviewers' reports, scholarly merit, relevance, ethical compliance, and the manuscript's overall suitability for publication.
7. Revision and reassessment: Where revisions are required, authors submit a revised manuscript and a response to the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may undergo further editorial assessment and/or external review.
8. Final editorial decision: The editor or authorized editorial team decides whether the manuscript is accepted, requires further revision, or is rejected.
9. Post-acceptance processing: Only manuscripts receiving a final acceptance decision proceed to copyediting, proofreading, production, and the journal's publication workflow.

↑ Back to Top

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript is screened by the Managing Editor and/or the assigned editor before external peer review. The screening evaluates whether the manuscript:

1. falls within the Focus and Scope of BALLREV;
2. complies with the Author Guidelines, manuscript template, and submission requirements;
3. contains the required manuscript components, metadata, and declarations;
4. presents a clear research problem, purpose, argument, and logical structure;
5. demonstrates an appropriate level of scholarly analysis for the journal's field;
6. uses relevant legal authorities, scholarly literature, and citations;
7. complies with the journal's publication ethics policies;
8. is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal; and
9. does not show apparent serious concerns involving plagiarism, redundant publication, duplicate submission, or other publication misconduct.

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

The initial editorial screening is normally completed within approximately two weeks after submission. This is a target for the initial screening stage only and is not a guarantee of external review, acceptance, or publication within two weeks.

↑ Back to Top

4. Similarity Screening and Publication Integrity

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are checked using iThenticate to identify textual similarity with existing publications and other sources. BALLREV applies a maximum similarity tolerance of 20%, excluding the bibliography, subject to editorial assessment of the similarity report.

The similarity percentage is not used as the sole basis for an editorial decision. The editorial team considers the sources and location of matching text, quotation and citation practices, legitimate textual overlap, previously published material, and whether the findings indicate possible plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, citation manipulation, or other publication misconduct.

A manuscript that exceeds the applicable tolerance or contains problematic similarity may be returned for clarification or correction, rejected before peer review, or handled under the journal's applicable publication ethics policies. A similarity result below the stated tolerance does not automatically establish that a manuscript is free from plagiarism or other ethical concerns.

Further information is available in the Plagiarism Policy and Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies.

↑ Back to Top

5. Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

Reviewers are selected by the editor based on the suitability of their expertise for the manuscript under consideration. Potential reviewers may be identified through the journal's reviewer database, relevant academic networks, scholarly publications, or other appropriate professional sources.

In selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers:

1. expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject, research question, and legal field;
2. academic, professional, research, or scholarly publication experience relevant to the topic;
3. the ability to provide objective, independent, constructive, and evidence-based assessments;
4. availability to complete the review within the agreed timeframe; and
5. the absence of actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality.

Reviewers must assess manuscripts within their areas of competence. They must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline an assignment when they cannot provide an independent and fair assessment. The editorial team may appoint an alternative reviewer when necessary.

↑ Back to Top

6. Number of Reviewers

BALLREV applies the following reviewer assignment policy:

The revised three-reviewer policy applies to manuscripts processed for publication beginning with Volume 7, Issue 3. The editorial team must apply the applicable policy consistently and maintain accurate records of reviewer assignments and reports in the journal's online submission system.

↑ Back to Top

7. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to their scholarly merit, relevance, originality, analytical quality, and ethical integrity. The assessment includes the following criteria, as applicable to the manuscript:

1. Scope and relevance: The manuscript's suitability for the Focus and Scope of BALLREV.
2. Originality and contribution: The originality of the argument, analysis, findings, or contribution to legal scholarship.
3. Research problem and objectives: The clarity and relevance of the research problem, questions, and objectives.
4. Method and analytical approach: The appropriateness and adequacy of the legal research method, conceptual framework, comparative approach, or other analytical approach used.
5. Quality of legal analysis: The depth, accuracy, coherence, and critical quality of the discussion and argument.
6. Legal authorities and literature: The relevance, accuracy, adequacy, and appropriate use of legislation, judicial decisions, legal authorities, scholarly literature, and other sources.
7. Evidence and reasoning: The consistency of the argument with the sources, evidence, and reasoning presented.
8. Presentation and organization: The clarity of writing, logical structure, readability, and conformity with the journal's manuscript and referencing requirements.
9. Publication ethics: Proper attribution, responsible use of sources, originality, and the absence of apparent ethical misconduct.
10. Significance: The potential contribution of the manuscript to legal scholarship, legal practice, policymaking, or the development of law.

Reviewers must provide specific, reasoned, and constructive comments. Their reports should identify the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, explain the basis for their assessment, and recommend improvements where appropriate.

↑ Back to Top

8. Review Timeline

The standard review period is approximately three to four weeks after a reviewer accepts the review invitation. This period refers to the reviewer's assessment stage and does not represent the total time from submission to publication.

The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the time required to secure reviewers, the extent of requested revisions, and the need for further assessment. Reviewers who cannot complete their assignments within the agreed period should notify the editorial team promptly.

The editorial team may grant an appropriate extension, invite another qualified reviewer, or take other reasonable steps to prevent unnecessary delays. Authors should be informed of material delays through the journal system or an official communication channel.

The stated timelines are normal targets, not guarantees of acceptance or publication by a specific date. BALLREV does not guarantee acceptance within a fixed period.

↑ Back to Top

9. Editorial Decisions

The editor or authorized editorial team makes the editorial decision after considering the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's quality and contribution, its relevance to the journal, and compliance with editorial and publication ethics requirements. Reviewer recommendations are important considerations but do not automatically determine the final decision.

BALLREV may issue the following decisions:

Where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor evaluates the substance and reasoning of the reports and may seek clarification, request further assessment, or invite an additional qualified reviewer when appropriate.

A manuscript is considered accepted only after the journal has communicated a final acceptance decision. Submission, completion of peer review, a request for revision, or a provisional recommendation does not constitute final acceptance. Any formal acceptance letter or equivalent confirmation must reflect the actual final editorial decision.

↑ Back to Top

10. Revision and Reassessment

Authors receiving a revision decision must revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers' comments and editorial instructions. Authors should submit a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed. Where a suggestion is not adopted, the response should provide a clear explanation.

The editor assesses whether the revision adequately addresses the issues raised. Depending on the extent and significance of the requested changes, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or other qualified reviewers for further assessment.

A revision request does not guarantee acceptance. If substantial concerns remain unresolved, the editor may request further revision or reject the manuscript in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

Authors who cannot submit a revision within the deadline communicated by the editorial team should request an extension before the deadline expires. Failure to submit a revision or communicate with the editorial team may result in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn from the editorial process, subject to the journal's applicable procedures.

↑ Back to Top

11. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

Reviewer recommendations may differ because reviewers assess manuscripts from different scholarly perspectives. Conflicting recommendations do not automatically result in acceptance or rejection.

When reports materially disagree, the editor considers the substance, evidence, reasoning, and relevance of each report. The editor may:

• request clarification from one or more reviewers;
• invite an additional qualified reviewer;
• ask the authors to address the substantive issues raised in the reports; or
• make an editorial decision based on the available evidence and the journal's standards.

The editor remains responsible for the final editorial decision. The number of positive recommendations alone does not determine whether a manuscript is accepted.

↑ Back to Top

12. Letter of Acceptance (LoA)

BALLREV may issue a Letter of Acceptance (LoA) to confirm that a manuscript has received a final acceptance decision. The LoA is an official editorial document and must accurately reflect the manuscript's actual status in the journal's editorial records.

An LoA Must Not Be Issued Solely Because:

• a manuscript has been submitted to BALLREV;
• the manuscript has passed initial editorial screening or similarity screening;
• peer reviewers have completed their assessments;
• one or more reviewers have recommended acceptance but the editor has not recorded final acceptance;
• the manuscript has received a minor-revision or major-revision decision; or
• a revised manuscript has been resubmitted but is still awaiting editorial reassessment or a final decision.

Required Accuracy of the Letter

An LoA should identify the accepted manuscript accurately and may include the following information, as appropriate:

• the journal's name, Batulis Civil Law Review (BALLREV);
• the manuscript's title as accepted by the journal;
• the author name or names as recorded in the submission metadata;
• the manuscript or submission identification number, where applicable;
• confirmation that a final acceptance decision has been made;
• the date of the final acceptance decision or letter issuance, as applicable; and
• the name and authority of the person issuing the letter.

Volume, issue, publication date, page range, DOI, or other publication details must not be stated as confirmed unless they have actually been determined by the journal. If such details have not yet been assigned, the LoA must not imply otherwise.

The journal must retain an appropriate record of the final acceptance decision and the corresponding LoA. Letters must not be backdated, issued on the basis of an unconfirmed decision, or used to misrepresent the editorial or publication status of a manuscript.

↑ Back to Top

13. Post-Acceptance Workflow

After final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the relevant post-acceptance stages under BALLREV's editorial workflow. These may include:

1. Copyediting: Editorial and language corrections, consistency checks, and conformity with the journal's style requirements.
2. Author clarification: Requests for clarification or correction where necessary to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the article.
3. Production: Preparation of the publication layout and galley files.
4. Proofreading: Review of publication proofs for typographical, formatting, and production errors. Proof corrections must not be used to introduce unauthorized substantive changes.
5. Metadata verification: Verification of article title, author names, affiliations, abstract, keywords, references, and other publication metadata.
6. Issue assignment and publication: The article is scheduled or assigned for publication in accordance with the journal's publication workflow.

Final acceptance does not mean that all production tasks have been completed. Authors must cooperate with reasonable editorial and production requests to facilitate accurate publication.

Any subsequent concern about research integrity, authorship, or other material matters may be handled under the journal's applicable publication ethics policies, including where necessary after acceptance.

↑ Back to Top

14. Confidentiality, Reviewer Conduct, and Prohibition of AI Use

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and constitute unpublished scholarly work. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose information about a submission, its contents, its review reports, or its editorial status to unauthorized persons.

Reviewers must:

• evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, independently, and constructively;
• support substantive criticism with clear reasoning and relevant evidence;
• avoid personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, and inappropriate language;
• not use unpublished ideas, data, arguments, or other information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, academic, or financial advantage;
• not distribute, copy, or share manuscripts or their contents without authorization from the journal;
• not contact authors directly about a manuscript unless authorized by the editorial team;
• notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, serious ethical concerns, or other possible misconduct; and
• comply with the journal's policies on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and artificial intelligence.

Peer review must be conducted through the reviewer's own independent scholarly assessment. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and scholarly integrity of their reports. The use of AI does not transfer or reduce this responsibility.

These restrictions apply regardless of whether an AI service claims to provide private processing, confidential mode, or data protection. Reviewers must not use AI-generated assessments as a substitute for their own review.

For the complete requirements and related provisions, reviewers must consult the BALLREV AI Tools Usage Policy: Reviewer Use.

Failure to comply with this policy may result in termination of the review assignment, removal from the journal's reviewer database where appropriate, and other action consistent with the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

↑ Back to Top

15. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting or undertaking a review. Conflicts may arise from financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, collaborative, or competitive relationships that could influence—or reasonably be perceived to influence—the review.

A reviewer must decline an assignment when a conflict could compromise the objectivity or fairness of the assessment. If a conflict becomes apparent after the review has started, the reviewer must inform the editor promptly and follow the editor's instructions.

Editors must consider conflicts of interest when selecting reviewers and avoid assignments that could undermine the independence or impartiality of the review process.

Where a manuscript is submitted by an editor or another person with a role in the journal, the submission must be handled independently, and the person concerned must not influence the review or editorial decision. Such cases must be managed in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

↑ Back to Top

16. Editorial Independence and Fair Decision-Making

Editorial decisions must be based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, originality, relevance to the journal's scope, methodological and analytical quality, and compliance with publication ethics requirements.

Decisions must not be improperly influenced by an author's nationality, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, or other irrelevant considerations. Authors must be assessed fairly and consistently under the journal's stated policies.

Reviewers provide expert advice, but the editor or authorized editorial decision-maker remains responsible for the final decision. Editorial decisions must not be determined solely by the number of favourable or unfavourable reviewer recommendations.

Any submission involving a conflict of interest with an editor or other person involved in editorial management must be assigned to an independent decision-maker and handled in a manner that protects the integrity of the review process.

↑ Back to Top

17. Publication Ethics and COPE Principles

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

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare competing interests, assess manuscripts within their competence, provide fair and constructive feedback, and complete reviews within the agreed timeframe. Editors are responsible for managing the process fairly and making editorial decisions based on scholarly merit and the journal's policies.

BALLREV's prohibition on reviewer use of generative AI is specified in Section 14 of this policy and in the AI Tools Usage Policy: Reviewer Use.

Concerns about research or publication misconduct, conflicts of interest, corrections, retractions, or other publication ethics matters are handled under the journal's Publication Ethics and Editorial Policies and other applicable policies.

↑ Back to Top

18. Transparency and Policy Compliance

This policy is publicly available to authors, reviewers, readers, and other interested parties. The editorial team is responsible for applying the policy consistently and maintaining appropriate records of editorial decisions, reviewer assignments, review reports, author responses, revisions, and relevant communications in the journal's online submission system.

The journal may review and update this policy when its editorial procedures or publication ethics requirements change. Any revision must be communicated transparently and applied consistently to the relevant manuscripts.

By submitting a manuscript to BALLREV, authors acknowledge that their submissions are subject to the journal's editorial screening, peer review, publication ethics policies, and final editorial decision-making process.

↑ Back to Top