Publication Ethics

Ethical standards and responsibilities for authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher of Hasanuddin Law Review

Hasanuddin Law Review is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by the Faculty of Law, Hasanuddin University. The journal is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, academic integrity, transparency, fairness, and accountability throughout the editorial and publication process.

Hasanuddin Law Review follows the principles and ethical standards recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher, are expected to uphold these principles and prevent any form of research or publication misconduct.

Contents

1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors Originality and Plagiarism Research Integrity Authorship and Contributorship Conflicts of Interest Ethical Approval and Privacy 2. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors Editorial Independence Fairness and Confidentiality Peer Review Integrity Editorial Decision-Making 3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers Confidentiality Objectivity Conflicts of Interest

4. Responsibilities of the Publisher Editorial Independence Scholarly Record Integrity 5. Research and Publication Misconduct Plagiarism Fabrication and Falsification Authorship Misconduct 6. Allegations of Misconduct Initial Assessment Investigation Corrective Action 7. Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions Types of Corrective Action Procedure Retracted Articles

8. Post-Publication Discussion How to Take Part Standards of Discussion Outcome 9. Reporting Ethical Concerns Reporting Procedures Confidentiality and Fairness 10. COPE Guidelines and Best Practices COPE Guidance 11. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Authors' Use of AI Editors' Use of AI AI in Peer Review Breaches of this Policy Ongoing Policy Development

1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

• Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts are original works and have not been published previously in substantially the same form. Any use of the work, ideas, arguments, data, or expressions of others must be properly acknowledged and cited. Plagiarism, including inappropriate paraphrasing and unattributed reproduction of another person's work, is unacceptable.
• Accuracy and Integrity of Research: Authors are responsible for presenting their research accurately, honestly, and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, manipulation of research findings, selective reporting, or any practice that may misrepresent the research is prohibited.
• Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission: Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal. Manuscripts that substantially duplicate previously published work should not be submitted unless appropriate justification and disclosure are provided.
• Proper Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors must appropriately acknowledge all sources that have significantly influenced the research. Relevant legal authorities, legislation, judicial decisions, scholarly publications, reports, empirical materials, and other sources must be cited accurately and consistently.
• Authorship and Contributorship: Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript. All listed authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission and publication. The contribution of each author must be stated in an Author Contribution Statement. Changes to the list of authors after acceptance are not permitted without a clear written justification approved by all authors and the Editor-in-Chief.
• Corresponding Author Responsibility: The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors are included, that no inappropriate persons are listed as authors, and that all authors have agreed to the submission, revision, and final publication of the manuscript.
• Conflict of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, interpretation, or presentation of the manuscript. Every manuscript must include a Conflict of Interest Statement, including where no conflict exists.
• Research Funding: Authors must disclose all sources of financial support, sponsorship, grants, or institutional funding related to the research and preparation of the manuscript in a Funding Statement, including the grant number where applicable, or state that the research received no specific funding.
• Human Participants and Ethical Approval: Where research involves human participants, interviews, surveys, confidential institutional data, or other ethically sensitive research materials, authors must comply with applicable ethical standards, institutional requirements, and informed consent procedures where necessary. The manuscript must state the number and year of the ethical approval and the name of the approving committee. For research with low or negligible risk, authors may instead provide a statement of compliance with research ethics and informed consent, which will be assessed by the editors and reviewers.
• Confidentiality and Privacy: Authors must protect confidential, personal, sensitive, or legally protected information obtained during the research. Information capable of identifying participants or confidential sources should not be disclosed without appropriate authorization.
• Errors in Published Works: If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in a submitted or published manuscript, they must promptly inform the editorial office and cooperate with the editors in correcting, clarifying, or retracting the publication where necessary (see Section 7).

↑ Back to Top

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

• Editorial Independence: Editors must make editorial decisions independently and on the basis of academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, contribution to legal scholarship, and conformity with the aims and scope of Hasanuddin Law Review. Editorial decisions must be free from undue influence by the publisher, sponsors, or commercial interests.
• Fairness and Non-Discrimination: Manuscripts must be evaluated without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political belief, institutional affiliation, seniority, personal background, or other characteristics irrelevant to scholarly merit.
• Confidentiality: Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not disclose information regarding a manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, editorial staff, publisher, or other persons directly involved in the editorial process where appropriate.
• Conflict of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have financial, professional, personal, institutional, academic, or other conflicts that could affect or reasonably appear to affect their impartiality. Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial team are handled by another editor, are reviewed under the same procedure as other submissions, and are limited to one article per author per year.
• Peer Review Integrity: Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts requiring peer review are evaluated by appropriately qualified and independent reviewers. Reviewer selection must be based on relevant expertise and the absence of significant conflicts of interest.
• Editorial Decision-Making: Decisions to accept, revise, or reject manuscripts should be based on the academic merits of the manuscript, reviewer assessments, editorial judgment, ethical considerations, and the journal's editorial policies. The journal does not offer fast-track publication that guarantees acceptance, and no Letter of Acceptance is issued before a manuscript has been formally accepted.
• Handling Misconduct: Editors must take reasonable and appropriate action when allegations or evidence of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, peer-review manipulation, or other forms of misconduct arise.
• Corrections and Retractions: Editors must facilitate corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other post-publication actions where reliable evidence demonstrates that the published scholarly record requires amendment.
• Protection of the Scholarly Record: Editors should take all reasonable measures to maintain the accuracy, integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record published by Hasanuddin Law Review.

↑ Back to Top

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviewers assist editors in evaluating the academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts. Reviewer comments should address the substance of the manuscript and may also assist authors in improving their work.
• Expertise and Promptness: Reviewers who believe that they do not possess sufficient expertise to evaluate a manuscript, or who are unable to complete the review within the requested period, should promptly notify the editorial office.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished material contained in the manuscript without authorization from the journal, and must not upload any part of it to an AI tool (see Section 11).
• Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should provide clear, reasoned, constructive, and academically substantiated comments.
• Acknowledgment of Relevant Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published works or legal authorities that have not been appropriately acknowledged where such omissions materially affect the manuscript. Reviewers must not request citations to their own work or to any journal unless the reference is genuinely needed.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, institutional, professional, financial, or personal relationships with the authors or the subject matter of the manuscript. Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.
• Misconduct and Ethical Concerns: Reviewers should inform the editors if they identify substantial similarity with other publications, suspected plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated materials, ethical problems, citation manipulation, or other potential misconduct.

↑ Back to Top

4. Responsibilities of the Publisher

↑ Back to Top

5. Research and Publication Misconduct

Hasanuddin Law Review maintains a zero-tolerance approach to practices that compromise the integrity, reliability, transparency, or fairness of scholarly publishing. Research and publication misconduct may include, but is not limited to, the following:

↑ Back to Top

6. Allegations of Misconduct

Any allegation of research or publication misconduct will be handled fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with applicable journal policies and recognized principles of publication ethics. Where appropriate, Hasanuddin Law Review will follow relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts.

1. Initial Assessment: The editorial office will assess the allegation and available evidence to determine whether further investigation is warranted.
2. Request for Clarification: The author, reviewer, editor, or other relevant party may be contacted and provided an appropriate opportunity to respond and submit supporting information.
3. Further Investigation: Where necessary, the journal may seek additional documentation, independent expert assessment, institutional clarification, or other relevant evidence.
4. Editorial Evaluation and Decision: The matter will be evaluated on the basis of the available evidence, relevant journal policies, and applicable ethical standards.
5. Corrective Action: Depending on the seriousness of the matter, actions may include manuscript rejection, withdrawal, correction, expression of concern, retraction, restriction on future submissions, notification of relevant institutions, or other measures considered appropriate (see Section 7).

Throughout the process, appropriate confidentiality will be maintained and the parties concerned will be given a fair opportunity to respond to relevant allegations and evidence. All steps are documented and the records are kept by the editorial office.

↑ Back to Top

7. Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions

Principles: Hasanuddin Law Review protects the integrity of the scholarly record. A published article (the version of record) is never changed or removed without a public notice. The journal follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Authority: Decisions on corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and withdrawals are taken by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of an assessment under Section 6 and, where appropriate, advice from members of the Editorial Board. An editor with a conflict of interest in the case does not take part. The publisher, the Faculty of Law, Hasanuddin University, is informed of every retraction. The authors are always given an opportunity to respond before a decision is made.

Types of Corrective Action

• Correction: Issued where a published article contains an error that does not undermine its main findings or conclusions. An erratum corrects an error introduced during production. A corrigendum corrects an error made by the authors.
• Expression of Concern: Issued where substantial doubts exist regarding the integrity of a publication and an investigation is not yet complete, or its outcome is not yet conclusive. It is updated or replaced once the matter is resolved.
• Retraction: Issued where reliable evidence demonstrates that the findings or conclusions can no longer be relied upon, including cases of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unauthorised authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, multiple or duplicate publication, unethical research, or a serious honest error.
• Withdrawal: Applies to an accepted manuscript or an Article in Press that has not yet been published as the final version of record. A withdrawn Article in Press is replaced by a notice explaining the withdrawal.

Procedure

1. A concern or request is received through the editorial office (see Sections 8 and 9) or is raised by the editors.
2. The Editor-in-Chief carries out an initial assessment within 14 working days.
3. The corresponding author is asked to provide an explanation and, where relevant, supporting evidence, within 30 days.
4. Where needed, the journal investigates further and may contact the authors' institution, funders, or other relevant parties.
5. The Editor-in-Chief decides on the action and informs the authors of the decision and the reasons for it.
6. The notice is published and the article record is updated as described below. All steps are documented and the records are kept by the editorial office.

Notices

Every correction, expression of concern, and retraction is published as an openly accessible notice titled "Correction to:", "Expression of Concern:", or "Retraction Note:", followed by the title of the article. The notice identifies the article, states the type of action, explains the reason, and names who issued it. It is linked to and from the original article, and the DOI metadata and indexing records are updated accordingly.

Retracted Articles

Errors Reported by Authors

Authors who find a significant error in their published article must inform the editorial office promptly and cooperate in correcting or retracting it. The journal takes prompt and transparent self-correction into account when deciding on the appropriate action.

↑ Back to Top

8. Post-Publication Discussion

Purpose: Hasanuddin Law Review recognizes that scholarly discussion and editorial responsibility continue after publication. Readers, authors, and other members of the scholarly community are welcome to engage with published articles and may raise substantive concerns regarding their accuracy, integrity, interpretation, authorship, originality, or ethical status.

How to Take Part

• Comment and Reply: Readers may submit a Comment on an article published in the journal within 12 months of its publication, by writing to the editorial office at [email protected]. A Comment should not exceed 1,500 words, must address the scholarly content of the article, and must be properly referenced. Comments are assessed by the editors and may be sent for peer review. The authors of the original article are invited to submit a Reply. Where accepted, the Comment and the Reply are published together and linked to the original article.
• Concerns about Errors or Integrity: Anyone who believes that a published article contains a significant error or raises an ethical concern should contact the editorial office as described in Section 9. Such concerns are handled under Sections 6 and 7.
• Discussion on External Platforms: The journal monitors substantive concerns about its articles raised in public forums and post-publication review platforms, and responds where the concern is specific and supported by evidence.

↑ Back to Top

9. Reporting Ethical Concerns

↑ Back to Top

10. COPE Guidelines and Best Practices

Hasanuddin Law Review is committed to applying recognized principles of publication ethics and editorial integrity. For ethical issues not expressly addressed in this policy, the journal may refer to the guidelines, flowcharts, core practices, discussion documents, and other recommendations issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) .

COPE guidance may be used by the editors when addressing matters including authorship disputes, conflicts of interest, peer-review concerns, plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication or falsification, corrections, retractions, and other issues affecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

↑ Back to Top

11. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

Scope and Basis

This policy applies to authors, editors, and reviewers of Hasanuddin Law Review and covers the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing, editing, and peer review. It follows the COPE position statement on Authorship and AI Tools.

Authors' Use of AI in Manuscript Preparation

Authors who use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in preparing their manuscripts may use such tools only to improve language, clarity, readability, and presentation. These tools must not replace core scholarly responsibilities, including developing original legal arguments, interpreting legal materials, analysing data or evidence, exercising critical judgment, or formulating the findings and conclusions of the research. AI tools must never be used to create, alter, or summarise sources, legislation, judicial decisions, quotations, interview material, or data. Images, figures, and tables generated by AI are not accepted unless AI is itself the subject of the research and its use is described in the methods.

All use of AI and AI-assisted technologies must remain under the authors' direct supervision and be subject to appropriate human review, verification, and editing. Because AI-generated content may appear authoritative while containing inaccurate, incomplete, biased, fabricated, or misleading information, including non-existent references and legal authorities, authors must check every citation against the original source and remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, integrity, and reliability of all content submitted to Hasanuddin Law Review.

Disclosure is mandatory for every manuscript. Each manuscript must include an AI Use Statement placed before the References. Where AI was used, the statement must identify the tool and its version, the purpose of its use, and the sections of the manuscript concerned. Where no AI was used, the statement must say so, for example: "The authors declare that no generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the preparation of this manuscript." Spelling and grammar checkers built into word-processing software need not be named. Such disclosure promotes transparency and supports trust among readers, reviewers, and editors.

Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies must not be listed as authors or co-authors, as authorship requires accountability, responsibility, and approval of the final work, which cannot be attributed to an AI system.

Editors' Use of AI

Editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, any part of them, reviewer reports, or personal data of authors and reviewers to generative AI platforms or external AI systems.

Editors may use AI tools only in a supporting role: to improve the language of editorial correspondence, to carry out background literature searches that do not disclose manuscript content, and to operate the screening tools provided through the journal's editorial system under confidentiality terms, such as similarity checking with iThenticate. AI tools must not be used to assess the scholarly merit of a manuscript, to recommend a decision, or to make an editorial decision. Every editorial decision is taken by an editor, who remains accountable for it.

An editor who uses an AI tool while handling a manuscript must record the tool and the purpose of its use in the manuscript file in the editorial system, where it can be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. Use of AI by an editor does not reduce the editor's responsibility for the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process.

Use of AI in Peer Review

Hasanuddin Law Review recognizes the increasing use of AI-assisted technologies in scholarly communication. To protect the integrity, independence, and confidentiality of the peer-review process, reviewers are not permitted to use generative AI or AI-assisted tools at any stage of the review. This prohibition covers using such tools to read, evaluate, analyse, summarize, or interpret a submitted manuscript, and to draft, translate, or polish review comments.

Manuscripts under review constitute confidential materials. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, excerpts, unpublished data, legal arguments, supplementary materials, or other confidential information to generative AI platforms or external AI systems. Such practices may compromise author confidentiality, intellectual property rights, data protection, and the integrity of the editorial process.

Peer review is an intellectual and evaluative responsibility that requires independent human judgment, subject-matter expertise, critical reasoning, and professional accountability. Reviewers therefore remain personally responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and quality of their review reports. By submitting a report, reviewers confirm that no AI tool was used in its preparation. A report that appears to have been produced with AI may be set aside, and the reviewer may be removed from the journal's reviewer pool.

Breaches of this Policy

Undisclosed or prohibited use of AI is handled under Section 6. Depending on its seriousness, it may lead to rejection of the manuscript, a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction under Section 7.

Ongoing Policy Development

↑ Back to Top