The Mandamus uses a proportionate editorial process. The depth of review depends on the format, complexity, urgency, evidentiary risk and potential public harm of the publication.
Editorial fit
The editor tests whether the proposal contains an original legal argument, serves the journal’s readers and can be supported responsibly.
Authority review
Core judgments, legislation, quotations and factual foundations are identified and checked. Gaps are returned to the author.
Substantive editing
The argument, structure, counterarguments, implications and degree of certainty are examined.
Risk and disclosure
Editors assess conflicts, confidentiality, privacy, defamation, pending proceedings and foreseeable harm.
Production
The publication receives metadata, accessibility review, citation formatting, source register, byline verification and final presentation.
Post-publication record
Material corrections, clarifications and updates are attached visibly to the permanent article.
Review is not endorsement
Publication means that the article met the journal’s standards for responsible public argument. It does not mean that every editor agrees with the conclusion.
Urgency
Fast publication does not eliminate verification. A Dispatch may use a narrower claim and shorter source base than a long analysis, but it must remain accurate, transparent about uncertainty and capable of correction.
Review pathways
The journal does not apply one identical process to every format. The responsible editor records the pathway selected and the reasons for any additional review.
Editorial fit test
A proposal should identify a legal question, an original contribution, a plausible audience and a source base capable of supporting the conclusion. Editors may decline work that is important but better suited to news reporting, individual advice, campaigning material, confidential professional communication or a specialist academic journal.
Substantive review test
- What exactly is the author asking the reader to accept?
- Which propositions are law, fact, interpretation, prediction or recommendation?
- Does the cited authority support those propositions?
- Has material contrary authority been addressed?
- Are institutional and comparative contexts described accurately?
- Is the degree of certainty proportionate to the evidence?
- What would a well-informed critic say, and has the article answered it fairly?
Source verification procedure
- Identify central authorities and claims before line editing.
- Open the complete source rather than relying on an extract where reasonably possible.
- Verify names, dates, provisions, quotations and pinpoints.
- Check current status, amendment, appeal or subsequent treatment where relevant.
- Record access limitations, translations and unresolved discrepancies.
- Prepare a public source register and retain an internal verification record.
Disclosure and conflict review
The editor considers the author’s employment, representation, litigation role, funding, financial interest, public advocacy, political office, personal relationship and prior publication. The purpose is not to exclude authors with experience or commitments; it is to let readers evaluate relevant perspective and to ensure that editorial handling is independent.
Risk and harm assessment
Editors consider evidentiary strength, public interest, identifiability, procedural fairness, privacy, safety, pending proceedings, court restrictions, vulnerable persons and the consequences of error. Possible responses include further verification, narrower language, anonymisation, additional context, opportunity to comment, delay, legal advice or refusal. The least restrictive measure that protects accuracy and lawful publication is preferred.
Production and acceptance checks
Production is not merely visual. The editor verifies taxonomy, author profile, headline, standfirst, dates, reading order, links, alternative text, citation display, source list, disclosure, correction field, structured metadata, mobile behaviour and print output. Publication is authorised only after the required checks are recorded.
Expedited work
Urgency may justify a shorter article, reduced breadth or publication before every secondary question is resolved. It does not justify invented certainty, unchecked quotation or omission of a known material qualification. A Dispatch should state what is known, what is not known, what source was available and what may change.
Post-publication monitoring
The responsible editor monitors material responses, later judgments, statutory change and credible error reports where the subject warrants it. Not every later development requires rewriting the article. Corrections address original error; updates address later context; new arguments may be published separately and linked.
Methodology questions
Who makes the final publication decision?
The authorised responsible editor, subject to escalation rules for institutional editorials, withdrawals, severe conflicts or exceptional risk.
Can an author see reviewer comments?
Authors ordinarily receive the substance needed to revise. Reviewer identity may remain confidential where necessary for candour, safety or independence.
What happens when editors disagree?
The disagreement is narrowed to the relevant standard, additional review may be sought, conflicts are managed and the designated senior editor makes a recorded decision.
Does editing change the author’s argument?
Editors may challenge and reshape presentation, but material changes to the author’s substantive position require approval. The journal may decline to publish if an acceptable final version cannot be agreed.