⚖️
Commitment to Integrity
The Paulinian Law Journal upholds the highest standards of integrity, fairness, transparency, and accountability in all aspects of scholarly publishing.
The Paulinian Law Journal is committed to integrity, fairness, transparency, accountability, editorial independence, and respect for intellectual property.
The Journal is guided by recognized principles of responsible research and scholarly publishing, including the core practices promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
🚫The Journal does not tolerate:
• Plagiarism or fabrication• Falsification of data• Duplicate publication• Citation manipulation• Unethical authorship• Compromised peer review• Retaliation against complainants• Other conduct undermining the scholarly record
The Editorial Board shall:
✓Evaluate submissions fairly and solely on scholarly and ethical considerations
✓Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts, author information, reviewer identities, and reports
✓Select qualified and independent reviewers
✓Disclose and manage conflicts of interest
✓Protect editorial decisions from improper influence
✓Verify citations and sources to the extent reasonably required
✓Avoid discrimination based on any protected characteristic
✓Provide authors with material reviewer and editorial comments
✓Correct significant errors in published works
✓Investigate credible allegations of misconduct
✓Issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when warranted
✓Protect complainants and respondents from unnecessary disclosure or retaliation
✓Preserve accurate records of editorial decisions and publication history
💡 Note: Editors shall not use unpublished information, arguments, or research obtained through the Journal for personal, academic, professional, commercial, or competitive advantage.
By submitting a manuscript, every author warrants that:
✓The work is original and has not been unlawfully copied
✓All sources, quotations, ideas, data, and contributions are properly acknowledged
✓All named authors made a substantial intellectual contribution
✓Persons who assisted but do not satisfy authorship standards are appropriately acknowledged
✓The manuscript is not under simultaneous consideration elsewhere, unless disclosed
✓All cited authorities have been personally checked for accuracy and relevance
✓Research data, interviews, and empirical findings have not been fabricated or falsified
✓Necessary ethical approval, informed consent, permissions, and data-protection measures have been obtained
✓Confidential, privileged, sealed, or legally protected information has not been improperly disclosed
✓Conflicts of interest and sources of funding or support have been disclosed
✓AI use has been accurately disclosed and complies with Journal policy
✓The author will cooperate with reasonable editorial, verification, correction, or misconduct inquiries
✓The author will promptly notify the Journal of any material error discovered before or after publication
⚠️ Important: Authors dealing with minors, survivors of violence, persons accused of crimes, protected witnesses, clients, research participants, or vulnerable communities must observe all applicable requirements concerning privacy, dignity, informed consent, anonymization, professional confidentiality, and statutory protection of identity.
Author malpractice includes, but is not limited to:
📝Plagiarism or mosaic plagiarism
🔄Self-plagiarism or undisclosed recycling of prior work
📄Duplicate or redundant publication
📋Simultaneous submission without disclosure
🔬Fabrication or falsification of data, interviews, facts, quotations, or authorities
📚Citation manipulation or inclusion of sources not actually consulted
👤Misrepresentation of credentials, affiliation, authorship, contribution, or ethical approval
✍️Gift, guest, honorary, ghost, or coerced authorship
©️Unauthorized use of copyrighted material
🔒Improper disclosure of confidential or privileged information
💼Failure to disclose a material conflict of interest or funding source
🤖Prohibited or undisclosed AI use
🎯Manipulation of the review process
🛡️Retaliation against editors, reviewers, complainants, or research participants
📝Refusal to correct a material error after receiving a fair opportunity to do so
📌 Note: Sanctions shall not be imposed solely on suspicion. The author must receive notice of the material allegation and a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Reviewers shall:
✓Accept assignments only when they possess sufficient competence and time
✓Provide objective, respectful, specific, and constructive comments
✓Evaluate the manuscript rather than the author
✓Preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript and review process
✓Disclose actual or perceived conflicts of interest
✓Decline assignments when impartial review is not reasonably possible
✓Identify relevant errors, unsupported claims, missing authorities, or ethical concerns
✓Avoid requiring citations primarily intended to inflate their own citation record
✓Refrain from appropriating unpublished ideas, arguments, data, or sources
✓Avoid delegating the review without permission from the Editorial Board
✓Comply with restrictions on uploading manuscripts into AI systems
✓Submit the review within the agreed period or promptly advise of any delay
💡Key Principle:
A reviewer's recommendation must be supported by reasons. Disagreement with an author's conclusion is not a sufficient basis for rejection when the manuscript fairly states the law, uses appropriate methods, and supports its position with reasoned analysis.
