•  
  •  
 

Publication Ethics

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

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
4. Responsibilities of the Publisher
6. Allegations of Misconduct
7. Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
8. Reporting Ethical Concerns
9. COPE Guidelines and Best Practices
10. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Policy

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.
  • 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.
  • Research Funding: Authors must disclose all sources of financial support, sponsorship, grants, or institutional funding related to the research and preparation of the manuscript.
  • 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.
  • 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.

↑ 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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

The Faculty of Law, Hasanuddin University, as the publisher of Hasanuddin Law Review, supports the editorial independence of the journal and is committed to maintaining appropriate standards of academic integrity, publication ethics, transparency, and scholarly quality.

The publisher works with the editorial team to prevent and address publication misconduct and, where necessary, supports appropriate corrective measures including corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other actions required to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

↑ 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:

  • Plagiarism: Unattributed reproduction, inappropriate paraphrasing, or misuse of another person's words, ideas, arguments, or scholarly work.
  • Fabrication or Falsification: Fabrication, alteration, manipulation, or misrepresentation of data, evidence, research materials, sources, or research findings.
  • Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Publishing substantially the same work, findings, or arguments in more than one publication without appropriate disclosure or justification.
  • Concurrent Submission: Submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
  • Inappropriate Authorship: Ghost authorship, guest authorship, honorary authorship, omission of legitimate contributors, or other misrepresentation of authorship.
  • Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest: Failure to disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other interests that may reasonably influence the research or publication process.
  • Citation Manipulation: Inappropriate practices intended to artificially increase citations or influence citation metrics, including coercive or irrelevant citation requests.
  • Peer-Review Manipulation: Attempts to interfere with reviewer selection, reviewer identities, review reports, or any other aspect of the independent peer-review process.
  • Misrepresentation of Legal Authorities: Fabrication, material distortion, or misleading presentation of legislation, judicial decisions, legal documents, references, or other authoritative legal sources.
  • Breach of Confidentiality: Unauthorized disclosure, distribution, or misuse of confidential manuscripts, research materials, personal data, institutional information, or privileged communications.
  • Manipulation of Research Materials: Improper alteration, suppression, selective presentation, or distortion of evidence or findings in a manner that affects the reliability of the research.
  • Misuse of Artificial Intelligence: Unethical, undisclosed, or inappropriate use of generative AI or automated technologies that compromises authorship, originality, accuracy, confidentiality, or scholarly integrity.
  • Other Unethical Practices: Any other conduct that compromises the integrity, transparency, independence, or reliability of the research and publication process.

↑ 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.

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.

↑ Back to Top

7. Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

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

Corrections: Where a published article contains an error that does not invalidate the overall findings or integrity of the work, the journal may issue a correction or clarification linked to the original article.

Expressions of Concern: An expression of concern may be issued where substantial doubts exist regarding the integrity of a publication but the available evidence is not yet sufficient to support a definitive corrective action.

Retractions: A retraction may be issued where reliable evidence demonstrates that the findings or publication record are seriously unreliable as a result of misconduct, major error, duplicate publication, unethical research, or another significant breach of publication standards.

Post-publication decisions will be based on the available evidence and will seek to maintain transparency, fairness, and the reliability of the published record.

↑ Back to Top

8. Reporting Ethical Concerns

Reporting Procedures: Authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, and other interested parties who become aware of possible research or publication misconduct involving Hasanuddin Law Review are encouraged to contact the editorial office. Reports should provide sufficient information and, where possible, supporting evidence to enable a fair and appropriate assessment.

Confidentiality and Fairness: All ethical concerns will be treated responsibly and with appropriate confidentiality. The journal will avoid premature conclusions and seek to ensure procedural fairness for all parties involved.

↑ Back to Top

9. 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

10. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Policy

Authors' Use of AI in Manuscript Preparation

Authors who use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in preparing their manuscripts should use such tools primarily 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.

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, authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and reliability of all content submitted to Hasanuddin Law Review.

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript where such tools have materially contributed to its preparation. The disclosure should clearly indicate the tool used, the purpose of its use, and the extent to which it contributed to the manuscript. 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.

Use of AI in Peer Review

Hasanuddin Law Review recognizes the increasing use of AI-assisted technologies in scholarly communication. However, to protect the integrity, independence, and confidentiality of the peer-review process, reviewers are not permitted to use generative AI or AI-assisted tools to evaluate, analyse, summarize, interpret, or generate review comments concerning a submitted manuscript.

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.

Ongoing Policy Development

Hasanuddin Law Review will continue to monitor developments in generative AI and AI-assisted technologies and may revise this policy where necessary to maintain appropriate standards of academic integrity, scholarly rigor, transparency, confidentiality, intellectual property protection, and publication ethics.

↑ Back to Top