Thomson Reuters’ Publication Ethics

Thomson Reuters’ publication ethics strive to ensure its Journal programme is unbiased, trustworthy and ethical. We understand the importance of integrity, reliability, balance, and related principles. We demonstrate this in our approach to publishing and collaboration with authors, editors and customers who expect from us reliable and objective information. Thomson Reuters recognise the importance of academic freedom and the freedom of authors to express their views is of great importance to us and our Journals.


Editorial board – Thomson Reuters will publicise the editorial board and editors-in-chief of each journal on the journals’ own web page

Research misconduct – Thomson Reuters views research misconduct as including the fabrication, falsification of research and the plagiarism, and undertakes to support Editors in identifying and preventing the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred. Under no circumstances shall Thomson Reuters encourage such misconduct, or knowingly permit it to take place. In the event that Thomson Reuters are made aware of an allegation of research misconduct, we will support Editors in Chief in investigating such allegations to their satisfaction.

Retraction/ Correction of articles – Where the Editors in Chief of a Thomson Reuters journal find an allegation of research misconduct to be proven, Thomson Reuters undertakes to retract or correct articles, or publish corrections or clarifications as necessary.

Preservation of Access – In the event that a journal is no longer published, Thomson Reuters will retain an archive on the Westlaw platform. Print issues of all journals are deposited with the UK copyright libraries. An archive is also maintained offline by Thomson Reuters. If you cannot access the article you need on Westlaw please contact the relevant publishing editor.


Selection of content — Editors will select content in accordance with clearly defined objective criteria and not with a view to promoting a particular point of view, interest or cause, e.g. “lobbying” for a particular change in the law.

Research Misconduct – Editors will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred. In no circumstances shall Editors encourage, or knowingly permit, research misconduct to take place.

Balance — All content must be measured and supported by evidence. Editors will offer commentators a right of reply where they can produce a comment of a suitable standard, also supported by evidence. Thomson Reuters journals do not represent any particular viewpoint and will publish material representing varying opinions and analyses provided it reaches a suitable standard and is of interest to our readers.

Integrity - Taking particular care over any commentaries, opinions, editorials etc. Editors will ensure that the principles set out above are adhered to without compromising the ability of the author of the commentary, opinion or editorial to put forward an informed, fair and balanced point of view.

Peer review - Editors will ensure that peer review will be an objective, confidential, process, where reviewers have no conflict of interest. Peer review requirements particular to a journal will be publicised on a journal’s own web page.


Peer Review – Authors will participate constructively with the peer-review process, as set out in the journal’s own web page.

Originality – Authors published in Thomson Reuters’ journals warrant that their research is original work. Except in exceptional circumstances, previously published work will not be considered.

Conflict of Interest – Authors will make clear any financial contributions received in support of the research, howsoever obtained

Choice of sources — Authors will be expected to reference content as fully as possible and substantiating submissions by using credible easily identifiable sources, e.g. an established law report series rather than summaries and extracts posted to a particular website. Authors shall ensure that the reasoning of any case cited is capable of supporting the propositions the authors make.

Conflicting accounts — Authors will endeavour to ensure that any content based on conflicting accounts provides the reader with a full and accurate description of all relevant accounts, in addition to identifying reasons why there may be discrepancies in the accounts provided, e.g. that the second of the two accounts came from a source closer to the decision-maker.

Language and balance (neutrality) – Authors published in Thomson Reuters journals will provide content which provides the reader with the material to fully understand the argument or issue presented. All content must be measured and supported by evidence.

Language (non-inflammatory) — Authors published in Thomson Reuters journals will provide content with suitably measured language, avoiding hyperbole and unduly provocative or overly-critical linguistic constructions.

Extracted material — Authors published in Thomson Reuters’ journals will ensure that any extracted material is reproduced accurately, is fully referenced and is clearly delineated from the substantive text.

Context — Authors published in Thomson Reuters journals will ensure that any comments, opinions, conclusions etc. are provided with sufficient context for the reader to fully appreciate the circumstances in which those comments, opinions and conclusions are made, e.g. “Given the severe economic circumstances, the town’s residents felt that they had little choice but to work without declaring the income that they had earned” rather than “the town’s residents had to work but they chose not to pay their taxes”.


June 2019