Publication Ethics and Malpractice

Academy Publishing holds itself to the highest possible standards. It does not condone copyright infringement and it takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. Academy Publishing acts as managing editors of the journals it publishes and ensures that good practice is maintained to industry-accepted standards. As publisher and editor, it treats all submissions in the same objective and fair way and strives to ensure that submitted papers are considered and accepted on their academic merit.

Author’s Responsibilities

Authors should warrant that the paper they are submitting for publication (a) is their work, it is original and has not been copied or plagiarised in whole or in part from other works, and (b) is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere.
If the paper incorporates third-party material, the author should have procured a written licence from the copyright owner to reproduce that third-party material, and clearly acknowledge and cite the source in the paper.
Authors should inform the editors of any conflicts of interest, including instances where a submitted paper is a result of a research grant given to the author.
Authors should clearly state in the paper the names of others who have reviewed their paper prior to its submission, so that the editors may effectively conduct a double-blind review of the paper.
If a factual error is identified, Authors must notify the editor to issue a notice of such an error, where such notification is deemed necessary.

AI Use Policy

1. Purpose
This policy seeks to preserve the integrity, authority, transparency and accountability of Academy Publishing publications while permitting limited and appropriate use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The fundamental principle is that all substantive intellectual contributions must remain attributable to a human author. AI may support the publication process, but it must not displace the human author as the source of legal judgment and analysis.

2. Guiding Principles
Authors remain fully responsible for:

the accuracy of all content;
legal analysis, reasoning and conclusions reached in the publication;
the selection and interpretation of authorities; and
verification of all citations and authorities.

Use of AI does not diminish or transfer authorial responsibility.

Human authors must retain genuine intellectual ownership of the work. AI may assist the author; it may not replace the author's reasoning or judgment.

3. Permitted Uses of AI
AI tools may be used for:

Editorial Assistance

spelling correction;
grammar and style editing;
improving clarity of expression; and
formatting assistance.

Preliminary Research

identifying potentially relevant cases;
identifying legislation or secondary sources; and
generating preliminary research leads for independent verification by the author.

Argument Testing

stress-testing arguments;
identifying potential weaknesses;
generating counter-arguments; and
acting as a "devil's advocate".

However, authors must independently evaluate all AI-generated suggestions and must not adopt them uncritically. Any resulting analysis must be expressed in the author's own reasoning and voice.

4. Prohibited Uses of AI
AI must not be used to:

draft or generate substantive content, including arguments, legal analysis, conclusions or recommendations; or
create citations or authorities without independent verification.

Even where an author claims to have reviewed and edited AI-generated content, substantive AI drafting remains prohibited.

5. Verification Obligations
Where AI is used in any capacity, authors must ensure no hallucinatory or fabricated content and authorities are included and should:

verify all factual assertions and legal positions against primary sources;
check all legal authorities and citations independently; and
take full responsibility for any errors arising from AI use.

AI-generated outputs are not authoritative sources.

6. Disclosure Requirements
Authors should disclose AI use, including Permitted Uses listed above.

A disclosure should:

identify the AI tool used;
describe the purposes for which it was used;
describe how AI was used; and
state expressly that the author retains full responsibility for the authorship of the work, including all substantive content, analysis, conclusions, authorities and citations.

7. Exceptions
Departures from this policy should be exceptional and require approval.

Exceptions may be permitted where:

AI use is itself the subject of discussion or illustration; or
there are compelling extenuating circumstances.

Any approved exception must be accompanied by disclosure.

8. Enforcement and Governance
The policy is based on author accountability rather than detection.

The inability to conclusively detect AI use is not a reason to relax standards. The objective is to preserve scholarly integrity, transparency and identifiable human authorship rather than merely regulate detectable conduct.

Referee’s/Reviewer’s Responsibilities

All journals published by Academy Publishing are peer-reviewed. Each paper is reviewed objectively, without prejudice.
In the case of the SAcLJ, the articles, comments and notes are taken through a double-blind refereeing process where the identities of both author and referee are kept confidential throughout the refereeing process. After the review, the identity of the Referee continues to remain anonymous; the only ones privy to the identity will be the journal’s Publications Committee and journal’s editors.
Referees/Reviewers should disclose any conflict with our policy of maintaining anonymity, or if there is a conflict of interest resulting from, for eg, competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. Any referee/reviewer who feels unqualified to review the paper will notify the editor promptly.
Referees/Reviewers are to categorise their decisions into one of 3 outcomes: (i) publishable as is; (ii) not publishable; or (iii) conditional acceptance (ie, publishable if revisions are made). For categories (ii) and (iii), comments should be provided as to why the paper is not publishable, and how it might be improved especially for a category (iii) decision.
As a guideline, the decision of the Referee should take into consideration: (A) the object of the paper and whether it achieves its aim; (B) coverage of literature in the field; (C) novelty of and any weaknesses in the argument; and (D) organisation and clarity of points.
The editor should be alerted to any papers that are substantially similar in content to the paper under review.
Any papers received for refereeing/review are treated as confidential documents. Referees/Reviewers will maintain the confidentiality of information disclosed to them by the editors or authors and will discard the paper responsibly post-review.

Publication malpractice procedures

Discovery of malpractice

Anyone who discovers a publication malpractice may notify the editors via e-mail ([email protected]). Sufficient information on the malpractice must be provided in the e-mail.
Investigation
- All allegations of malpractice are treated seriously by Academy Publishing and will be thoroughly investigated.
- Investigations will be conducted sensitively.
Minor breaches

Minor breaches are dealt with by the editors. The Author will be informed of the complaint and nature of the allegation, and will be given the opportunity to respond, and where appropriate be allowed to rectify the issue.
Major breaches

Major breaches will be raised to the Journals Editorial Board. Depending on the severity, a formal warning may be issued to the Author or the paper could be withdrawn.

For Authors

Submit Article Now!

Links