{"id":1571,"date":"2026-06-12T13:03:13","date_gmt":"2026-06-12T10:03:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/httlawreview.com\/ethical-principles-and-publication-policy\/editorial-team-publication-policy\/"},"modified":"2026-06-12T13:03:13","modified_gmt":"2026-06-12T10:03:13","slug":"editorial-team-publication-policy","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/httlawreview.com\/en\/ethical-principles-and-publication-policy\/editorial-team-publication-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy on Publication by Editorial Team Members"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This policy governs how submissions authored by members of the editorial team<\/strong> are handled, in order to safeguard the editorial independence and impartiality of Law, Technology & Society<\/em>. It is aligned with the ethical principles of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics<\/em>), ICMJE, and TR Dizin (ULAKB\u0130M).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Scope<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For the purposes of this policy, the “editorial team<\/strong>” includes the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Section and Field Editors, members of the Editorial and Advisory Boards, Language Editors, and editorial office staff, together with their close collaborators and immediate family members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Core Principle<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Publication in Law, Technology & Society<\/em> by editorial team members is not prohibited<\/strong>; scholarly merit is the decisive criterion. However, because such submissions constitute a structural conflict of interest<\/strong>, they are subject to a stricter<\/strong> and fully independent<\/strong> evaluation than standard submissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Core rule.<\/strong> No member may take part, directly or indirectly, in any decision concerning their own work.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

3. Evaluation Procedure<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The following rules apply to submissions authored by an editorial team member:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Recusal.<\/strong> The authoring member is excluded from all stages \u2014 reviewer assignment, evaluation, revision, and final decision.<\/li>
  2. Independent handling.<\/strong> The submission is managed by another editor who has no conflict of interest with the author. If the Editor-in-Chief is an author, the process is conducted by a designated independent or guest editor<\/strong>.<\/li>
  3. Restricted system access.<\/strong> The authoring member has no access<\/strong> to reviewer identities or to the manuscript’s workflow panel in the journal management system.<\/li>
  4. Double-blind peer review.<\/strong> The work is assessed by at least two independent external<\/strong> reviewers who are not informed of the author’s editorial role.<\/li>
  5. Transparent declaration.<\/strong> The published article clearly states that the author is a member of the editorial team and that the review was conducted independently of that role.<\/li>
  6. Documentation.<\/strong> It is recorded who handled the process and how its independence was ensured.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    4. Limits<\/h2>\n\n\n\n