Foundational Law Review: Theory & Praxis (FOLAR) is irrevocably committed to the highest standards of integrity in peer review and academic publication. The prevention of publication malpractice is a fundamental responsibility of the editorial board. Our ethical framework is grounded in the Core Practices defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the act of publishing authors, editors, and reviewers are contractually and ethically bound to the following standards.

I. Duties of Authors

1. Standards of Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must guarantee that their submitted manuscripts are entirely original works. Any utilization of the work and/or words of others must be appropriately cited or quoted. FOLAR enforces a strict zero-tolerance policy regarding plagiarism, including self-plagiarism (text-recycling). All submissions will be subjected to similarity screening software. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

2. Data Access and Retention (Praxis Component)

Given FOLAR’s scope includes the praxis of law, authors submitting empirical studies or case analyses may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3. Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

• Corresponding Author: Ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
• AI Disclaimer: Generative AI tools (e.g., LLMs) cannot be listed as authors. If AI tools are used in the drafting process, this must be explicitly disclosed in the methodology or acknowledgments section.

4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors must 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 must be disclosed.

II. Duties of Editors

1. Decision on the Publication of Articles

The Editor-in-Chief of FOLAR is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. This decision is based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, and the reviewers’ comments. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

2. Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Evaluations of submitted manuscripts are made exclusively 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.

3. Confidentiality

The Editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

III. Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. FOLAR adopts a Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure impartiality.

2. Promptness

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 themselves from the review process.

3. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

4. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

IV. Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

1. Retraction Policy

FOLAR will consider retracting a publication if:

• There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation).
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification.
• It constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research.

2. Corrections (Errata/Corrigenda)

FOLAR will issue corrections for honest errors that do not invalidate the overall results of the article. These will be linked to the original article to ensure the integrity of the academic record.

V. Human Subjects and Informed Consent

For research involving human subjects (e.g., interview-based socio-legal studies), authors must identify the committee (IRB or Ethics Committee) that approved the research, confirm that all research was performed in accordance with relevant guidelines/regulations, and confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants.