1. At least two independent peer Reviewers from outside of the research unit of the Author of the article shall be appointed.

2. The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

3. Article will be presented to the Reviewers anonymized, without data allowing for identification of the Author; their reviews will be presented to the Author anonymized, without data allowing for identification of the reviewers (double blind peer review process).

4. In case the reviewers would nonetheless be able to identify the Author of the reviewed article, they will be asked to sign the Financial Law Review Author declarations. Conflict of interest occurs if Reviewers relationship to the Author is of such a kind that it could give rise to doubts on his impartiality and objectivity. Among other cases, conflict of interests occurs, if the Reviewer and the Author are in direct personal relationship (second degree relationship, marriage), are professional subordinates of each other, or were in direct professional scientific cooperation in the past two years preceding the year of preparation of the review. If conflict of interest exists or the Reviewer cannot or doesn’t sign the declaration for other reasons, the Editorial Board appoints different Reviewer.

5. Peer review is submitted to the editorial board in written form and contains an unambiguous conclusion concerning the conditions for acceptation or rejection of the reviewed article.

6. Anonymized reviews are disclosed to the Author of the article.

7. Decision about publishing the article is positive, if the article met the following criteria:

a. Passed the initial verification of the relevant section editor,

b. It has received two positive reviews and any eventual comments by the Reviewers on the eligibility for publication have been addressed by the Author,

c. It received a positive opinion of the Editor-in-Chief.

8. The basis of the rejection of the article are:

a. Negative assessment of the initial section editor,

b. At least one negative peer review or review pointing the need of changes in the article that were left unaddressed by the Author,

c. Negative opinion of the Editor-in-Chief.

9. The average rejection rate of submitted papers in the period between 2023-2025 was 17%.