INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXPERT PEER REVIEWERS
The BFLR’s review process entails an initial review of the manuscript by the Managing Editor or Section Editor to gauge its suitability for possible publication based on subject matter and calibre. Manuscripts that pass the initial review are subject to a double-blind review by two reviewers with special expertise in the subject area. A “double blind” review refers to the anonymity of both the reviewer and author vis-à-vis one another throughout the peer review process. The Managing Editor or Section Editor reviews the comments received from the Expert Peer Reviewer to assist in publication decisions and will generally relay the reviewer’s feedback to the author. Prior to publication all manuscripts also undergo two rounds of copy editing to ensure language clarity and consistency with the BFLR’s Style Guidelines.
Expert Peer Reviewer Report
Thank you for serving as an Expert Peer Reviewer for the BFLR. As a specialist financial law journal, most contributions to the BFLR concern issues within sub-specialities of banking and finance law. Your review is being sought because of the relevancy of your expertise to the subject matter and the importance of an expert review to determining whether to publish this manuscript in the BFLR.
i. Purpose
The purpose of the BFLR’s Expert Peer Review process is to provide an additional review of the merits of the manuscript by reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. As part of the BFLR’s editorial review process, the Expert Peer Reviewer’s Report informs decision-making by the Managing Editor or Section Editor and provides authors with valuable feedback with which to refine and enhance their work.
ii. Tone
We appreciate your contribution in time and expertise to review this manuscript for possible publication. Your candour and probity in completing the Expert Peer Review report are encouraged. The Editorial Team strives to provide superb service to authors, curate content of the highest calibre, and operate with the utmost professionalism. Accordingly, we ask that you adopt a constructive tone in your report by:
- focusing on issues of quality and the contribution of the manuscript
- keeping infrequent or minor issues in perspective, and
- backing up both positive and negative comments with specific examples
If, for any reason, you feel unable to complete a review of this manuscript in this constructive spirit, please contact the Managing Editor or Section Editor to advise of your concerns. You are always free to decline to review the manuscript.
iii. Language and Style
The BFLR publishes work by authors from around the world and English is not everyone’s first language. In your review, focus on the substantive merits of the manuscript. Any language issues, as well as conformity with the BFLR’s Style Guidelines, will be addressed through copy editing prior to publication.
iv. Literature and Legal Landscape Review Articles
Occasionally, the BFLR considers review articles, including surveys of the academic literature and reviews of the legal landscape in a defined area. Review articles make a different contribution than traditional articles: rather than advancing one detailed point, their value lies in providing a reliable, well‑structured account of the current state of the law and/or scholarship within the scope the author has set.
In assessing a review article, please focus on whether it is comprehensive and useful for a reader seeking to understand the field (subject to any clearly stated limitations), rather than whether it advances a single novel argument. A helpful litmus test is: would you recommend this piece to someone who needs a thorough, credible overview of the relevant legal and/or scholarly landscape?
Click to download the Expert Peer Review Instructions and view full details!