Law Text Culture Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Law Text Culture

Ethics and Malpractice Policy

Law Text Culture is a transcontinental, open access, peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal that publishes original and innovative research about law and jurisprudence across three interconnected axes: Politics, Aesthetics, and Ethics. Law Text Culture publishes an annual thematic special issue, curated by guest editors selected by the editorial board.  Each issue explores its theme across a range of genres, with scholarly essays and articles sitting alongside visual and literary engagements. In this way, Law Text Culture excites unique intersectional and interdisciplinary encounters with law in all its forms.

This statement explains ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for its journal, i.e.: the author, the Managing Editor, the Guest Editors, the peer-reviewers and the Editorial Board. This statement is based on internationally accepted best practice guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for dealing with ethical issues in journal publishing. The journal is committed to ensuring all content is assessed on merit, is high quality scholarship, and ethically published.

DUTIES OF EDITORS

Guest Editors and Publication of Articles

The Guest Editors of each issue of the Journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal issue should be published. They will make these decisions based on academic merit and fit with the journal’s aim and scope. The Guest Editors may confer with the Managing Editor or members of the Editorial Board in making this decision.
They may be guided by the policies of journal’s editorial board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality
The Guest Editor/s and Managing Editor, and any editorial staff, must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Contribution of Peer Review

Peer review assists the Guest Editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. This journal uses a blind peer review process which assists in making editorial decisions.

The review process usually takes 4-6 weeks. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, and without any personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Peer reviewers’ identities are protected as are authors. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

In submitting manuscript, an author warrants that the manuscript is entirely their own work, and that it has neither been published previously nor currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Plagiarism is unethical and unacceptable in this journal.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Acknowledgment of Funding Sources

Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should be duly acknowleged at the end of the article.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

By submitting a manuscript to Law Text Culture, you are agreeing to comply with this policy.

 

Recent Posts

Corporate Manslaughter Laws in Singapore, Fiji and Australia: A Comparison

2020 LIRC Seminar Series
Date: 30 September 2020, 12:30 – 1:30pm AEST via Zoom
Recorded Seminar: Video Link
Presenter: Associate Professor Sheikh Solaiman

 

Abstract: Industrial homicides are now widely regarded as corporate manslaughter. Workplace deaths have been a global concern following the loss of 6,300 workers’ lives every day, totalling 2.3 million deaths per year at work across the globe. These alarming figures include fatalities that have occurred in Singapore, Fiji, and Australia ─ three common law countries. As revealed in Suva by a resident magistrate in July 2019, at least 160 workers reportedly die each year in Fiji, suggesting that this is an area which needs to be looked at immediately. Despite such a significant number of deaths and the adoption of the Australian Commonwealth scheme of corporate liability for Fiji a decade ago, no record of corporate manslaughter conviction has been found. Likewise, Singapore, which lacks a separate corporate manslaughter law, mirrors the same level of passivity in prosecuting corporations for homicide, though about 50 workers die there per year. Notably, Australia has been making steady progress towards reducing such casualties. This paper examines the corporate manslaughter laws of Singapore, Fiji and Australia, aimed at finding out if Australian state/territory laws can be of help in improving the corresponding laws of the other two nations.
  1. The Use of Enforceable Undertakings as an Enforcement Mechanism in Environmental Law: Ensuring Transparency, Accountability, Certainty and Environmental Outcomes Leave a reply
  2. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): An introduction and impact discussion Leave a reply
  3. Transoceanic Connections: a Legal Assessment of China’s and Japan’s Economic Engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean Leave a reply
  4. Technology, Displaced? The Risks & Potential of Artificial Intelligence for Fair, Effective & Efficient Refugee Status Determination Leave a reply
  5. A Troubled History: Forcible Transfers and Deportations in International Criminal Law Leave a reply
  6. Commercial Advisory and Training Work within the University Leave a reply
  7. Coronavirus and the Law Leave a reply