Skip to content
Monday
The Mandamus

Legal Analysis, Opinion & Public Reason

Submit

The Mandamus

Editorial Board

The people, offices and safeguards responsible for the journal’s editorial integrity.

The Editorial Board is responsible for editorial direction, commissioning, review, source verification, corrections and the principled separation of contributor argument from institutional position.

How the Board works

Editors are expected to exercise independent judgment, declare relevant conflicts and recuse themselves where necessary. The Board may seek specialist review, but publication decisions remain editorial decisions. No donor, partner, public authority, political actor, contributor or affiliated organisation is entitled to approve an article’s conclusions.

Editorial governance

A board designed around accountable editorial functions

Named appointments are published only after identity, role, consent and public remit have been verified. Until then, this charter defines the offices required for publication and the responsibilities attached to each one.

01

Editor-in-Chief

Sets editorial direction, protects independence and has final responsibility for publication integrity.

02

Managing Editor

Directs commissioning, schedules, review assignments, corrections and publication operations.

03

Standards & Citations Editor

Verifies authorities, quotations, disclosures, citation form and material update records.

04

Section Editors

Commission and review work within defined fields while applying a common publication standard.

05

Digital & Production Editor

Maintains accessible presentation, metadata, archival consistency and reliable digital publication.

06

Advisory Council

Provides non-binding strategic guidance without controlling individual publication decisions.

Appointment standard

Named profiles are published only after the individual’s identity, current role, institutional affiliation, consent and public biography have been verified. The published role description states the member’s editorial remit; it does not imply endorsement by the member’s employer or professional body.

Decision accountability

  • Substantive publication decisions are recorded in the editorial workflow.
  • Editors do not review work in which they have a material undisclosed interest.
  • Material corrections and withdrawals are decided under the published corrections policy.
  • An Editorial represents the Board only when expressly labelled as such.

Composition and responsibilities

The Board may include an Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, commissioning or section editors, a standards and citations editor, a digital editor and advisers. Actual appointments are displayed only after verification and consent. Titles are functional: they allocate responsibility for decisions, workflow and accountability rather than ceremonial status.

Editor-in-Chief

Protects editorial independence, sets strategic direction and decides exceptional questions involving institutional voice, withdrawal or serious legal risk.

Managing Editor

Maintains workflow, assigns editors, verifies completion of publication gates and oversees corrections and operational records.

Commissioning or section editor

Assesses fit, develops the argument with the author and coordinates specialist review where required.

Standards and citations editor

Examines primary authority, quotations, citation accuracy, source registers, disclosures and correction language.

Appointment, tenure and removal

Appointments should be based on legal competence, editorial judgment, independence, integrity, availability and the contribution the person makes to disciplinary, professional, regional and demographic breadth. The appointing authority should define the role, start date, expected term, review point and circumstances for renewal or early termination. A member may resign. Removal may be appropriate for sustained non-performance, serious misconduct, repeated non-disclosure, misuse of confidential information, interference with independence or conduct materially incompatible with the journal’s standards.

Conflicts, recusals and confidentiality

Board members must disclose interests that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their judgment. Recusal ordinarily means no access to confidential deliberation, reviewer identity or decision-making on the affected matter. Editors must not use unpublished submissions, private correspondence or source information for personal, professional, political or commercial advantage.

Decision-making

Routine decisions may be delegated to the responsible editor. Significant corrections, withdrawals, institutional editorials, disputes involving senior editors and departures from policy should receive documented consideration by at least one additional authorised editor. Where consensus is not possible, the Editor-in-Chief or an expressly delegated senior editor makes the final editorial decision, subject to recusal.

Board questions

Can an employer or institution appoint its representative to the Board?

No organisation acquires a Board seat merely through funding, partnership or affiliation. Every appointment is made to serve the journal’s editorial mission and remains subject to the same independence and conflict rules.

Does an adviser approve articles?

Not ordinarily. Advisers provide non-binding guidance unless separately appointed to an editorial role for a defined publication.

How are complaints about a Board member handled?

A complaint should be reviewed by an uninvolved senior editor or publisher representative. Where the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, another authorised person must control the assessment and record the outcome.