Peer Review Process

Batulis Civil Law Review (BALLREV) is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of published scholarship through a rigorous, fair, independent, transparent, and confidential peer review process. Every manuscript is assessed in accordance with the journal's Focus and Scope, Author Guidelines, publication ethics policies, and scholarly standards in Civil Law, Contemporary Private Law, and Comparative Private Law.

This policy explains the type of peer review, editorial stages, reviewer qualifications and selection, number of reviewers, review timelines, manuscript assessment criteria, editorial decisions, revision procedures, confidentiality requirements, conflicts of interest, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in peer review.

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 peer 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.

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 publication according to the journal's workflow.

Passing the initial screening or similarity check does not guarantee external review, acceptance, or publication. A manuscript may be rejected at any stage if it fails to meet the journal's scholarly, editorial, or ethical requirements.

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 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.

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.

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.

6. Number of Reviewers

BALLREV applies the following reviewer assignment policy:

  • Through Volume 7, Issue 2 (July 2026): Each manuscript proceeding to external peer review is assigned to two reviewers with relevant expertise.
  • Beginning with Volume 7, Issue 3 (November 2026): Each manuscript proceeding to external peer review is assigned to three reviewers with relevant expertise.

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.

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.

8. Review Timeline

The standard review period is approximately three 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 may 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.

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 applies the following editorial decisions:

  1. Accepted: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision, subject to applicable final editorial and production requirements.
  2. Accepted with Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited changes. The editor assesses whether the requested revisions have been adequately addressed.
  3. Accepted with Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor before a final acceptance decision is made.
  4. Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of reasons such as being outside the journal's scope, insufficient originality or scholarly contribution, serious analytical or methodological weaknesses, inadequate presentation, or ethical concerns.

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.

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.

11. 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.

BALLREV strictly prohibits reviewers from using generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools or AI-assisted systems to analyze, evaluate, summarize, score, assess, or otherwise process a submitted manuscript for peer review. Reviewers are also prohibited from using AI to draft, generate, formulate, or substantially prepare peer review comments, reports, or recommendations concerning a submitted manuscript.

Reviewers must not upload, paste, submit, copy, or otherwise disclose manuscripts, supplementary files, manuscript excerpts, reviewer reports, author responses, or confidential editorial communications to external AI systems or third-party services.

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 section.

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.

12. 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.

13. 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 11 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.

14. 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.