VUWLR ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

These guidelines are fully consistent with the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct.

Editors' responsibilities

Publication decisions - The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal will be published. The editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal's scope. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.

Confidentiality - The 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, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest - Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent

Peer review process - An article submitted for possible publication will first be reviewed by the editor or gest editor(s). The editor may reject it out of hand either because it is not dealing with relevant subject matter for the journal, or because it is manifestly of so low a quality that it cannot be considered at all. Articles that are found suitable for peer review are then sent to one or more appropriate reviewers. Referees are asked to classify the paper as publishable immediately, publishable with amendments and improvements, or not publishable. Referees’ evaluations usually include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript. Referees’ comments are then seen by the author.

The Editor evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or the political philosophy of the authors. The editor’s decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based exclusively on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity and of interest to a New Zealand audience.

Digital Archiving - The editor will ensure the preservation of digital access to the journal content via Victoria University of Wellington’s Open Journal System.

Confidentiality - Any articles received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour 

Unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations will be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

The editor will take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, depending on the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.

Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious misconduct might require application of one or more following measures:

• Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
• Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
• A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
• Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department
• Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.

Authors' responsibilities

Open Access Policy - The journal is freely available online. Authors are required to agree with this open access policy, which enables unrestricted access and reuse of all published articles provided that the original publication in the Victoria University of Wellington Law Review is acknowledged.

Reporting standards - Authors of papers should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate.

Data access and retention - Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism - Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, should ensure that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in any form constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication - An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour. The VUWLR do not accept articles that have been previously published or submitted to another publication.

Copyright is retained by authors, meaning they can decide about eventual republication of their text. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of sources - 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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper - 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 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest - All authors should include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may 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 their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum.

Reviewers responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions - Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication.

Promptness - Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality - Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.

Standards of objectivity - Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources - Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest - Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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 associated with the papers.