A Mandamus publication should allow a careful reader to identify the argument, inspect the supporting authority, understand the author’s perspective and trace any later correction.
Accuracy and primary authority
- Material legal propositions should be supported by primary authority wherever reasonably available.
- Judgments, statutes, gazettes, rules, official reports and treaty texts must be opened and checked before publication.
- Case names, citations, dates, judicial offices and quotations must be verified against authoritative records.
- A summary must not be presented as the full text of an authority.
- Material factual claims require a reliable and proportionate evidentiary basis.
Fair characterisation
Strong criticism is permitted. Misdescription is not. Authors must distinguish holding from obiter, allegation from finding, proposal from enacted law, and their own inference from the court’s expressed reasoning. Serious counterarguments should be addressed rather than concealed.
Publication labels
Analysis
Evidence-led interpretation of doctrine, institutions or legal material.
Commentary
A timely, sourced response explaining the importance of a development.
Opinion
A normative position clearly attributed to its author.
Case Note
A structured examination of facts, issues, reasoning, holding and significance.
Editorial
An expressly identified institutional position of the Editorial Board.
Review
Critical engagement with a book, report, judgment or work of legal significance.
Artificial intelligence
- No machine-generated article may be published under a human byline.
- Every citation, quotation and authority must be checked by a human editor.
- Material use of generative systems in drafting, translation or research must be disclosed to the editor.
- Confidential, privileged or personal data must not be entered into unapproved external systems.
- Fabricated authority is grounds for rejection, correction, withdrawal and review of the contributor relationship.
Legal and ethical risk
Submissions containing allegations, confidential information, personal data, pending-case risk, security concerns or potential harm receive proportionate legal and ethical review. The standard is not risk avoidance at any cost; it is responsible, evidence-based publication.
Accessibility and permanence
Publications should be readable with assistive technology, keyboard navigation, text enlargement and print tools. Permanent URLs, visible dates, source registers and correction histories form part of the publication record.
Evidence hierarchy and proportionality
The required evidence depends on the claim. A proposition about the text of a statute should ordinarily cite the current official text. A proposition about judicial reasoning should cite the complete judgment. A proposition about institutional practice may require official records, data, interviews or multiple reliable reports. The absence of a perfect source does not automatically prohibit publication, but uncertainty must be stated and the conclusion narrowed.
Quotations, translations and summaries
Quotations must be exact, complete enough to avoid distortion and checked against the source. Ellipses and insertions must be visible. A translated quotation should identify the translator or explain that the translation is editorial. Where an authoritative translation exists, it should be preferred or compared. Headnotes, press summaries and database extracts must not be mistaken for the court’s complete reasoning.
Anonymous and confidential sources
Anonymous sourcing is exceptional in legal analysis. The responsible editor must know the source’s identity, assess access and motive, seek corroboration and explain to readers why anonymity was granted to the extent safety and confidentiality permit. Anonymous opinion, unsupported assertion and material supplied solely to influence litigation are insufficient.
Allegations, privacy and vulnerable persons
Allegations are attributed and distinguished from findings. The journal considers public interest, evidentiary strength, response opportunity, procedural status and foreseeable harm. Names or identifying details may be withheld where publication would create disproportionate risk, particularly for children, survivors, witnesses and people not central to the legal issue. Court availability does not by itself make every personal detail editorially necessary.
Statistics, charts and visual material
Data must state its source, period, unit, exclusions and relevant limitations. Charts must not use truncated axes, selective timeframes or visual scaling that materially misleads. Images require lawful permission or a valid exception, accurate captions and appropriate alternative text. Documentary images must not imply guilt, affiliation or events they do not show.
Originality, plagiarism and duplicate publication
Authors must identify prior publication and substantial overlap. Properly attributed quotation and development of earlier work are permitted; undisclosed copying, fabricated attribution, redundant publication and appropriation of another person’s argument are not. Confirmed plagiarism may lead to rejection, correction, withdrawal and restriction of future submissions.
Minimum publication gates
- Identity and byline details verified.
- Format, category and jurisdiction correctly assigned.
- Central legal authorities opened and checked.
- Material quotations and dates verified.
- Relevant interests reviewed.
- Headline and standfirst accurately reflect the article.
- Risk, privacy and response questions considered.
- Source register, citation and permanent metadata completed.
- Mobile, keyboard, link and presentation checks completed.
- Final author approval recorded for material substantive changes.
Standards questions
Does every article receive peer review?
No. Review is proportionate. Some longform, empirical or highly specialised work may receive external specialist review; timely commentary may receive intensive editorial and source review instead. The journal does not describe a process as peer review unless it meets the stated procedure.
Can an article rely on a newspaper report?
Yes for appropriate factual context, especially where no primary record is accessible, but the report’s reliability and limitations must be considered. It should not replace an available judgment, statute or official record for a legal proposition.
Can an author use a pseudonym?
Only exceptionally. Editors must verify the author’s identity, document the reason, assess accountability and explain the arrangement to readers where safe.