Peer Review Policy
The ALI–ABA Business Law Course Materials Journal follows a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of manuscripts submitted for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.
Initial Editorial Assessment: Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether it falls within the journal's scope and meets the basic requirements relating to scholarly quality, originality, formatting, ethical standards, and research integrity. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external peer review.
Reviewer Selection: Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to independent reviewers with appropriate academic or professional expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their subject knowledge, research experience, and absence of identifiable conflicts of interest.
Double-Blind Review: The journal operates a double-blind review system in which reviewers do not receive the identity of the authors, and authors do not receive the identity of the reviewers. Authors should therefore ensure that manuscripts submitted for review do not contain unnecessary identifying information.
Review Criteria: Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on factors including originality, significance and relevance of the research, clarity of objectives, methodological or analytical rigor, accuracy of legal and scholarly analysis, quality of references, organization and presentation, ethical compliance, and contribution to existing literature.
Review Outcomes: Following peer review, the manuscript may be recommended for acceptance, acceptance subject to revisions, revision and resubmission, or rejection. Where revisions are requested, authors may be required to provide a revised manuscript together with a response explaining how the reviewers' comments have been addressed.
Editorial Decision: The final publication decision rests with the Editor or designated editorial authority. Editorial decisions are based on the overall scholarly assessment of the manuscript and are not determined solely by an individual reviewer's recommendation.
Reviewer Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents. They must not disclose, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.
Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. A reviewer may be replaced where a significant conflict is identified.
Reviewer Conduct: Reviews should be objective, constructive, respectful, and supported by clear scholarly reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable. Reviewers should promptly inform the editorial team if they identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated information, ethical concerns, or other forms of research misconduct.
Appeals: Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant procedural error or a misunderstanding of the manuscript may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals are considered by the editorial team in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures, and the decision following an appeal is final.
The journal is committed to conducting peer review fairly, confidentially, transparently, and consistently, while maintaining the independence of editorial decision-making and the integrity of the scholarly publication process.
