Academic and Research Misconduct Policy


To provide a timely and consistent approach for complaints concerning academic and administrative Decisions.


This procedure applies to appeals to findings in relation to Plagiarism and Research Misconduct.


In this document:

Special Circumstances means matters which are, in most cases, beyond the control of the Author including compassionate and compelling circumstances.

Plagiarism means presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without the consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition, as is the use of material generated wholly or in part through use of artificial intelligence. Plagiarism can also include re-using your own work without citation. 

Research Misconduct means falsification, fabrication and plagiarism and can include making up data or results, incorrectly attributing authorship, gift authorship, manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data, graphs, images, or results.


Under this Procedure, Authors may lodge an Appeal against a Decision made in relation to Plagiarism and Research Misconduct, subject only to the terms of any other applicable policy or procedure.

The Griffith Journal of Law & Human Dignity will uphold the principles of Procedural Fairness throughout the Appeal process.

1 Grounds for Appeal

An application must set out one or more of the following grounds of Appeal:

  • There was a misapplication of Policy or Procedure resulting in some real disadvantage to the Author.
  • The Decision was manifestly incorrect or unjust, or the penalty, where applicable, was disproportionate to the nature of the Author’s conduct which was the subject of the Decision.
  • There was a failure on the part of the Decision-maker to afford the Author Procedural Fairness.

2 Complaints about procedures

Complaints about procedures may include complaints about the time taken to review a manuscript, dealings with an editor, or any other matter related to the Journal’s procedures. Authors, in the first instance, should contact their Managing Editor. Final decisions on appeals will rest with the Editorial Board. The Editor-in-Chief and the Managing Editor (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

3 Complaints About Publication Ethics

Complaints about publication ethics may include researcher, author, editor, or reviewer conduct. A complainant, in the first instance, should contact the Editor-in-Chief who will investigate the matter. The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board (where relevant) will decide on a course of action and provide feedback to the complainant. If the conduct of the Editor-in-Chief is the subject of the complaint, please contact the Consulting and Executive Editor.  If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, it will be escalated for investigation by the Deputy Head of School (Research), Griffith Law School whose decision will be final.

4 Confidentiality and privacy

Appeals must be treated by all parties as strictly confidential. This means that information about the Appeal will only be discussed with, or made available to, a person who:

  • is a party to the Appeal;
  • is or has been legitimately involved in the management of the Appeal; or
  • has a formal management role in following up the consequences or implications of the Appeal.

Relevant parties to the Appeal, Author Support Persons or any other observers must refrain from discussing the Appeal with each other or with other parties unless those discussions have been ordered or approved by the person managing the Appeal.