Current Issue
2008 List of Contributors>>>
Contact Pretoria University Law Press |
 |
 |
| CONSTITUTIONAL COURT REVIEW |
 [Constitutional Court Review] Current Issue |
Constitutional Court Review SAIFAC, in collaboration with the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Pretoria, contributes to the editing of this once-a-year, peer-reviewed academic journal. The journal contains lead essays, responses, short articles and case comments devoted to the jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court in the previous year. The journal has a 20-person editorial board, including 10 international members. The inaugural issue of the CCR will be published in September 2008. In order to stimulate research for this publication, an annual conference will be held in July of each year at which contributing authors will present their draft papers. The first such conference will take place at the Lourensford wine estate in Somerset West, Western Cape, in July 2008.
Editors Stuart Woolman, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria Theunis Roux, SAIFAC Danie Brand, Department of Public Law, University of Pretoria
Editorial Board Justice Laurie Ackermann, Constitutional Court Lady Justice Mary Arden, Court of Appeal, United Kingdom Danwood Chirwa, University of Cape Town Sujit Choudhry, University of Toronto Christian Courtis, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina Javier Couso, Universidad Diego Portales, Santiago, Chile Charles Fombad, University of Botswana Nicole Fritz, Southern Africa Litigation Centre Karthy Govender, University of KwaZulu-Natal Michelo Hansungule, University of Pretoria Karl Klare, Northeastern University Heinz Klug, University of Wisconsin - Madison Sandy Liebenberg, University of Stellenbosch Frank Michelman, Harvard University John Mubangizi, University of KwaZulu-Natal Christina Murray, University of Cape Town Charles Ngwena, University of the Free State Enyinna Nwauche, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Nigeria Cheryl Saunders, University of Melbourne Dire Tladi, Department of Foreign Affairs Andre van der Walt, University of Stellenbosch
Editorial Policy The editorial policy in respect of solicited and unsolicited publications will be identical. On receipt, a proposed article will be reviewed by one of the three managing editors for an initial judgment on whether it is of sufficient quality to be sent for peer review. This judgment will be made in accordance with a fairly low threshold test aimed at excluding only those submissions that are obviously of no academic merit or which do not exhibit the required focus on the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. On acceptance of a submission for peer review, the responsible editor will remove all electronic traces of the author’s identity before sending the article simultaneously to two referees. Each referee will be asked to prepare a short report on the article in a form that can be anonymously communicated to the author concerned. In particular, referees will be asked to specify whether they think the article should be: (a) rejected outright; (b) rejected with an invitation to resubmit (major changes required, which should be subjected to fresh peer review); (c) accepted subject to the making of minor changes (no fresh peer review required); or (d) accepted outright (no changes other than purely editorial and house-style changes required), and to substantiate his/her view with at least three written reasons. In the event that the two referees make conflicting recommendations, the article will be sent to a third referee for a casting vote. In the event that the language used in the referee’s report is judged by the responsible editor not to be in a form suitable for sending verbatim to the author concerned, the referee concerned will be asked to rephrase the relevant passages. On receipt of the recommendations from the two referees, or from the third referee in the event of a conflict, the responsible editor will communicate verbatim the content of the two non-conflicting referee’s reports to the author, together with such comments from the third report as he feels may be helpful to the author concerned. In the event that the referees recommend acceptance for publication subject to the making of certain changes, the responsible editor will instruct the author to make all necessary changes as a condition of acceptance for publication, subject to the author’s right to challenge the scholarly merit of any particular recommendation in writing. In that event, the responsible editor’s decision on whether the change is required as a condition of publication shall be final. |
Site best viewed at a resolution of 1024 x 768. Last updated
17 April, 2008
|
|