Submissions to the African Human Rights Law Journal

Contributions

Contributions should conform to the Contributor's guide and should be submitted online.

 Click here to submit   

For queries email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Requirement for submissions

  Download the style guidelines for contributors

The editors will consider only manuscripts that comply with the following requirements:

• The submitted manuscript must be original. Authors must indicate in a covering letter accompanying the manuscript that the manuscripts has not already been submitted for publication or published elsewhere. Only manuscripts that have not already been submitted for publication or published elsewhere will be considered.
• Authors must disclose all information that may be reasonably perceived to lead to a conflict of interest; and must declare any financial support related to the submitted manuscript.
• If manuscripts are submitted by co-authors, it must be clearly indicated that all authors have significantly contributed to the research.
• All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes when so required by the publisher or editors.
• All manuscripts selected through the process of anonymous peer-review will be made freely available online upon publication.
• The copyright of articles are retained by the author/s who also retain publishing rights.
• Manuscripts must follow the African Human Rights Law Journal’s style guidelines for contributors. Manuscripts that do not conform to the African Human Rights Law Journal’s style guidelines will be rejected out of hand.
• The African Human Rights Law Journal is published in English. Manuscripts will not be considered if the English is below standard. In case of doubt about the correct use of the English language, authors are advised to have their text checked by a native English speaker before submission.
• Manuscripts should average between 7 000 and 10 000 words (including footnotes) in length. Authors of manuscripts must indicate their university degrees, professional qualifications and professional or academic status. Authors should supply a summary of their contributions of not more than 300 words, setting out the main findings and contribution to scholarship. Footnotes must be numbered consecutively. Footnote numbers should be in superscript without any surrounding brackets.
• Manuscript should be submitted by e-mail.
• Authors must provide their ORCID identifier together with their manuscript. ORCID provides a persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between you and your professional activities ensuring that your work is recognised. If you do not have such an ID, please register at the website https://orcid.org/register, and thereafter provide us with your ID.  
• The Journal does not charge article processing fees of any kind.

After submission: Screening and review process

• Screening for plagiarism: The African Human Rights Law Journal has a strict policy of screening manuscripts for plagiarism. The AHRLJ uses the Turnitin software to detect plagiarism prior to considering a submitted manuscript for review. Manuscripts displaying plagiarism may be rejected on this ground alone. Authors not adhering to the AHRLJ's policy that verbatim quotes must be clearly indicated as such may be requested to revise their articles in light of this requirement.
• In-house substantive screening: All manuscripts then undergo an in-house substantive screening by the Editor-in-Chief and the Associate Editors.  Manuscripts may at this stage be rejected without undergoing anonymous peer review, on grounds such as: it falls outside the scope of the AHRLJ; the AHRLJ style guidelines were not followed; the manuscript does not conform with formal submission requirements; the language use significantly impedes comprehension; the manuscript does not present a substantiated argument. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage are informed about the in-house screening decision.
• Peer-review process: Selected manuscripts are then sent for anonymous peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field, for their views on whether the submitted manuscript is publishable.  The review process is double blind, in the sense that reviewers are not aware of authors’ identity, and authors are not aware of reviewers’ identities. Reviewers are required to engage in an objective assessment and should indicate if they have any conflict of interest. After peer review reports are received, the Editors decide on whether to invite authors to submit a revised version of the article together with a report on how authors have implemented comments from the reviewers. On receipt of the revised version, the Editors decide on whether to publish.
• The Editors reserve the right to modify manuscripts that have successfully passed through the peer-review process, to bring them in conformity with the house style, to improve accuracy, to eliminate mistakes and ambiguity, and to bring the manuscript in line with the tenets of plain legal language.

Use of AI by authors

All authors are fully responsible for the originality, validity, and integrity of the content of their manuscript. Authors submitting manuscripts to the  African Human Rights Law Journal have to confirm that the manuscript is their original work and that the work of others has been appropriately attributed.

As such, AI-generated substantive content will not be considered for publication. Any submission found to include AI-generated substantive content will be declined, or retracted if already published. Concealing the use of AI tools is unethical and violates the principles of transparency and honesty in research.

AI tools may however be used to guide the author to adopt a particular method, or to assist the author in conducting research, for example to find relevant sources. Such use and the extent thereof must be declared at the time of submission in the cover letter and detailed in the methods, as set out in the manuscript. The declaration of such use should include the name, version, and manufacturer of the tool used, and the date on which it was accessed, for example: Chat GTP 3.5, Version 28 August 2023, Open AI, accessed 1 January 2024. The ‘prompt’ or plain-language instruction entered in the tool should also be provided, where relevant, either in the methods section of the manuscript or as supplementary material to the manuscript.

However, AI and large language models may be used to revise and edit original writing. On the one hand, the use of AI tools to conduct a general edit, to translate and to summarise papers or large sections of writing is permitted, but needs to be disclosed. On the other hand, the use of commonly used AI tools to conduct spelling and grammar checks, is permitted but does not need to be disclosed. However, authors should exercise discretion when using these tools. It is important to carefully scrutinise the suggestions provided by AI tools to avoid the misinterpretation of the context or terminology.

The table summarises these stipulations as they apply to authors:

For reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts of articles, fairly and objectively, with a focus on quality and originality.

Reviewers should not rely on AI-based tools to write decision letters on their behalf without proper human oversight. Experience and knowledge are crucial in this process, supported by various tools such as plagiarism detection programmes, statistical analysis software, and academic search engines, many of which are provided by AI applications. Reviewers should carefully check for incorrect terminology that may have been suggested by spelling and editing tools.

Reviewers using AI applications and content must adhere to ethical standards and best practices and document their use of AI tools in the review reports. Hiding the use of AI tools is unethical and undermines transparency in peer review.

Reviewers must consider the impact and implications of AI-generated content in publication. They need to be aware of the tools and resources that facilitate the detection of AI-generated or modified content. Reviewers are called upon to identify misinformation as this can have adverse consequences.

All submitted manuscripts and correspondence by reviewers with the Journals’ editors should be treated as confidential and not shared in any way.

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of the African Human Rights Law Journal

Authors should observe high standards with respect to publication ethics as set out in the guidelines adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines). Any cases of ethical misconduct will be treated very seriously and will be dealt with in accordance with these guidelines.

In the event that the African Human Rights Journal publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct, the publisher or editor will investigate and act upon such allegations.

When information comes to the attention of the publisher or editors of the AHRLJ that requires the retraction or correction of a published article, the matter must be investigated and acted upon appropriately.  The AHRLJ is committed to publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when so required, in the issue immediately following, in line with COPE guidelines.

Conflict of interest

Authors should declare if they consider that they may be reasonably perceived to have a conflict of interest in respect of the content of the manuscript they submit.  The ground for the potential perception of a conflict of interest must be acknowledged in the manuscript. 

Editors must refrain from participating in the selection of articles about which they may reasonably be perceived to have a conflict of interest.

External reviewers are expected to refrain from participating in the selection of articles about which they may be reasonably perceived to have a conflict of interest.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states in its Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (2003) as follows:

‘Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.’

Conflict of interest include any personal involvement in a case or other matter related to a manuscript under consideration for publication that may reasonably perceived to lead to bias, such as having a meaningful financial interest in a related matter, having received funding, having an interest in the outcome of a case being discussed in a manuscript, or having a personal relationship.