The reviewer prepares a review in accordance with the instructions for reviewers, evaluating the quality of the paper and its compliance with the instructions for authors. The deadline for sending a review is 10 (ten) days from the day of receipt of the paper, by filling in the form that the reviewer downloads from the website of the Faculty of Law of the University of Banja Luka and submits to the editor via e-mail: If it is necessary for the author to make corrections in the paper, he\she is obliged to do so within 10 (ten) days from the date of submission of the review.


Reviewing is an anonymous process (the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, nor does the author know the identity of the reviewer). The reviewer should inform the editor if he/she believes that there is a conflict of interest in connection with the review of a specific paper. The reviewer may not accept for review papers outside the area for which he/she is considered to be competent.
Reviewers should inform the editor if they notice any violation of the ethical and scientific code in the paper. Reviewers should identify relevant sources that are not considered in the paper and alert the editor to significant similarities between the reviewed paper and any other published paper or manuscript under review in another conference proceedings or journal, if they are aware of it. Reviewers should also alert the editor that the same manuscript has been submitted for publication to another conference proceedings or journal, if they are aware of it. Reviewers can recommend the citation of certain references, but not require the citation of papers, if there is no scientific justification for this.
Each manuscript is treated as a confidential document, and no information may be given about it. Data and ideas from the manuscript may not be used until the paper is published.


When evaluating the paper, the reviewer evaluates the originality of the paper, the importance of the topic, the adequacy of the applied methods, the scientific relevance of the data presented in the paper, the style of presentation, whether the paper corresponds to the topic of the collection, whether it is based on relevant scientific knowledge from the given field, and whether it contains all the necessary elements provided by the Instructions for Authors. The reviewer’s assessment of the quality of work must be clear, based on arguments. Reviewers are expected to improve the quality of the manuscript with their suggestions. If the reviewer assesses that the paper deserves publication with changes, he/she is obliged to specify the way in which this can be achieved. The reviewer is obliged to subsequently review the paper that has been modified according to his/her suggestions and comments, if it is required to return the work for re-review.
The reviewer evaluates the work by filling out a review form in which he/she can give suggestions and comments to the author in order to improve the quality of the work. The reviewer can also make suggestions to the author in the text of the paper itself using MS Word’s Track Changes option and comments, provided that he/she uses them in a way that will ensure that his/her identity remains hidden from the author(s). In the case of using this option, the reviewer, after reviewing the paper, sends the editor a document with comments during the preparation of the review via e-mail.

The reviewer proposes the categorization of the work: 1) an original scientific paper, 2) a review article; 3) a preliminary communication and 4) a scientific critique/review.
The original scientific paper must necessarily contain: the scientific context of the problem, with reference to the relevant results of previous research and the appropriate literature, the corpus, methods and objectives of the research, and, after analyzing the researched problem, clearly present the results in the conclusion. In the review, it should be stated if any of these elements are missing in the paper. This type of work should offer an original contribution, which, among other things, includes testing or developing a new theory, testing and developing hypotheses, developing new concepts or criticizing existing ones, new insights into existing archival material or the treatment of previously unknown archival material, and empirical research such as surveys of public opinions, interviews, focus groups, etc.
The review article provides a complete and critical presentation of a specific problem and relevant literature, a new synthesis of scientific information, points out the similarities, differences and shortcomings in the existing literature and should also contain the author’s theoretically based position. This type of work has a more synthetic and less analytical character. This type of work may include an exhaustive review of previous literature, court practice or regulations, with own insights and suggestions for further research, but it may also contain the backbone of the research, critical views of current research questions, and a detailed description of the research material.
The preliminary communication is an original scientific paper, but of a smaller scope or preliminary character where some elements of the original scientific paper may be omitted, and it is a summary presentation of the results of a completed original research work or a work that is still under construction.
The scientific critique/review is a discussion on a certain scientific topic, based exclusively on scientific argumentation, in which the author proves the correctness of a certain criterion of his opinion, that is, confirms or refutes the findings of other authors.
The reviewer proposes to the Editorial Board:
1) to accept the paper without changes – if the manuscript is suitable for publication in the given form,
2) that the paper be accepted for publication with the condition that parts of the paper are shortened, reworked or omitted – without sending it for re-review,
3) that the paper be accepted for publication with the condition that parts of the paper are shortened, reworked or omitted – with return for re-review,
4) that the paper is not accepted for publication.
In the case of recommending revision of the work, the reviewer states: a) changes that must be made in order for the work to be published, b) changes that are recommended but not necessary. In case it is proposed that the paper is not accepted for publication, an explanation must be given.
Reviewers are not expected to do proofreading of the paper, but it is advisable to indicate if they think it is necessary to proofread the paper.