Publication Ethics

Legal Research & Analysis (Leg. Res. Anal.) is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics and to preventing all forms of publication malpractice. The journal’s policies follow the Core Practices and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and promote honesty, originality, fairness and accountability in legal scholarship.

All parties involved in publication (authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher) are expected to act with integrity, transparency and respect. The journal takes all allegations of misconduct seriously, investigates them thoroughly, and takes appropriate action where misconduct is confirmed.

Duties of Authors

  • Reporting standards: Authors must present an accurate and objective account of their research, with sufficient detail and references for others to verify their analysis and, for empirical work, replicate it. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.
  • Originality and plagiarism: Submissions must be the authors’ original work. Authors must properly cite the work and words of others. Plagiarism in any form, including self-plagiarism and the unacknowledged reuse of one’s own published text, is unacceptable.
  • Multiple, redundant or concurrent submission: A manuscript must not be submitted to more than one journal at a time. Publishing the same or substantially overlapping work in more than one venue is prohibited.
  • Authorship: Authorship is limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the work. All co-authors must approve the final manuscript and agree to its submission. The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal and for keeping all co-authors informed. Changes to authorship after submission require the written agreement of all authors.
  • Acknowledgement of sources: All publications, data and other sources that influenced the work must be properly cited.
  • Conflicts of interest and funding: Authors must disclose any financial, personal or professional conflicts of interest that could influence the work, and acknowledge all sources of funding, as set out in the Conflict of Interest Policy.
  • Use of AI tools: Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools in preparing the manuscript. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, and authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the content.
  • Research involving human participants: Where applicable, authors must confirm that ethical approval was obtained (e.g., from an institutional review board), that informed consent was given, and that participants’ privacy and confidentiality have been protected.
  • Fundamental errors: Authors who discover a significant error in their published work must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate in correcting or retracting the article.

Duties of Editors

  • Publication decisions: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts are published, taking into account the reviewers’ reports and, where needed, advice from the Editorial Board. Decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, validity and relevance to the journal’s scope, and are bound by legal requirements on matters such as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  • Fair play: Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual content, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, disability, age, institutional affiliation or political views.
  • Editorial independence: Editorial decisions are not influenced by the publisher, funders, advertisers or any commercial considerations.
  • Confidentiality: Editors must keep all information about submitted manuscripts confidential and share it only with the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers and other editorial advisers as necessary.
  • Conflicts of interest: Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, and must not use unpublished material from a submission in their own research without the authors’ written consent. Submissions from editors are handled as described in the Conflict of Interest Policy.
  • Peer review: Editors must ensure that every manuscript sent for review undergoes a fair, unbiased and timely double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Duties of Reviewers

  • Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and helps authors improve their work.
  • Promptness: Reviews should be completed within the agreed timeframe, typically two weeks. Reviewers who cannot complete a review on time, or who feel unqualified to assess the manuscript, should inform the editor promptly.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss them with others, upload them to generative AI tools, or use unpublished content for their own advantage.
  • Objectivity: Reviews must be objective, constructive and supported by clear reasoning. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
  • Conflicts of interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest and decline to review where a conflict exists, for example a collaborative, competitive or institutional relationship with the authors.
  • Alerting the editor: Reviewers should notify the Editor-in-Chief confidentially of any suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication or other ethical concern.

Further guidance is provided in the Reviewer Guidelines.

Duties of the Publisher

Innovative Insights (SMC-Private) Limited supports the journal’s editorial independence and its commitment to ethical publishing. The publisher ensures the long-term preservation of published content (see Archiving Policy), assigns persistent identifiers (DOIs) to all articles, and works with the editors to publish corrections, or retractions where required.

Handling Misconduct

  • Investigation: Allegations of misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, manipulation of peer review or undisclosed conflicts of interest, are investigated fairly and confidentially, in line with the relevant COPE flowcharts. The authors concerned are given the opportunity to respond.
  • Outcomes: Depending on the seriousness of the case, confirmed misconduct may result in:
    • rejection of the manuscript;
    • correction, an expression of concern, or retraction of a published article;
    • notification of the authors’ institution(s) or funders; or
    • a ban on future submissions to the journal for a specified period.
  • Post-publication issues: Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions are handled in accordance with the journal’s Correction, Retraction, Withdrawal and Removal Policy.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days, setting out the reasons for the appeal. Appeals are reviewed by an editor not involved in the original decision, who may consult additional reviewers. The decision on appeal is final.

Complaints about the journal’s processes, its editors or its publication practices should be sent to lra@innovativejournals.net. They will be acknowledged within 3 working days and handled in accordance with COPE guidance.