PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT (INCLUDING 2025 ADDENDUM ON THE USE OF AI)
Our ethic statements for editors, reviewers and authors are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
DUTIES OF EDITORS
Publication decisions
The General Editor, where necessary in consultation with the editorial board, will decide which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The policies and practices of the journal will guide decision making subject to legal and ethical requirements related to libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. A reviewer's recommendations do not bind the editor’s decision whether to publish an article.
Fair play and editorial independence
The General Editor will evaluate submitted manuscripts on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study's validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal's scope, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
Confidentiality
The editor will not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editor's, reviewer's or any other reader's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Publication decisions
The editor will ensure that manuscripts considered for publication undergo expert, double blind peer-review. (If the author’s identity cannot be kept confidential, the editor may consider single blind review.) Subject to the oversight of the Editor-in Chief and Editorial Board, the editor will decide which manuscripts will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers (particularly members of ATTA), the reviewers' comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with editors of other journals or reviewers in making this decision.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
The Editor (in conjunction with the Editor-in-Chief and a sub-committee of the Association’s executive) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be investigated, including after publication. The journal will follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be appropriate, will be published in the journal. Furthermore, the relevant article may be removed from the ATTA website.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Peer review assists editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. JATTA shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process should engage in peer review.
Qualification of reviewers
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 themself from the review process. The editorial board is ultimately responsible for ensuring the competence of the reviewers
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorised by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer's personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
By submitting an article for publication in JATTA an author implicitly agrees to indemnify JATTA (the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board and the Editor) and ATTA (the members of the Executive and Association members) from any third-party claim of defamation or breach of intellectual property rights.
Quality of submissions
Articles must:
Not be less than 6,000 or more than 12,000 words (including footnotes but not bibliography) without the editor’s permission.
Comply with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation 4th edition (or later if replaced).
Be expressed in English suitable for an Australasian academic journal. (Authors for whom English is a second language may need to engage a copyeditor at their own expense.)
Not include automatic formatting eg for headings, footnotes or references.
The editor may reject a non-compliant submission at any stage before publication.
Reporting standards
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Human ethics approval
If a study involves human research, the Authors should provide evidence of human ethics approval on submission. The editor will not consider for publication a human research study without evidence of human ethics approval.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.
Multiple or Concurrent publications
Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently, without full disclosure, constitutes unethical publishing behaviour.
Authorship of the paper
Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
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.
Peer review
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, subject consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers' comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editors learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors' obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
ADDENDUM: the use of generative Artificial intelligence (GenAI)
JATTA does not recognise GenAI as an author because it is not a natural person who can be held accountable or own copyright.
An author must fully disclose any use of GenAI, excepting search or spelling and grammar correction functions.
If an author uses GenAI in the research process, for example to suggest sources or to collate or analyse materials, they must fully disclose details in the article’s methods sections.
An author must disclose use of GenAI in a way that affects reproduction of the methods used. Generally, non-reproductible methods will not meet expected research standards. Articles should include a discussion of the limitations created by the research methods.
Authors must not use GenAI to:
• Generate primary arguments, conclusions, or substantive content.
• Create or manipulate research data unless explicitly part of the research design.
• Edit any quotes or other qualitative data.
• Replace human oversight in the verification of citations, statistics, or generated content.
Author disclosure of the use of GenAI is an important part of the reviewing process. JATTA expects reviewers to consider whether disclosed use of GenAI has an impact on the strength of the article.
The editor will decide, inter alia, whether to require an author to:
• Amend a statement regarding the use of GenAI;
• Rewrite a submission without using GenAI before it can be sent for peer review;
• Decline to send a submission for peer review because of the use of GenAI; or
• Decline to publish an article because of the use of GenAI.
If an author fails to disclose substantive use of GenAI, the submission will not comply with expected ethical standards and will not be suitable for publication.