Editorial
standards

Scrutiny requires an accurate account of the material being scrutinised.

These standards guide case notes, legislation records, academic analysis and source preservation on ain.bd. They apply to the factual account, the references and the argument, including the titles, summaries and subject labels through which readers find an entry.

Our aim is continuing examination of recent legal developments. The availability of full texts and the time needed for careful analysis affect coverage. An entry’s inclusion, or its absence from the collection, should not be treated as a judgment about its legal importance. The scope of the collection is explained in our coverage and source information.

Use the full primary text wherever available. Prefer material from the issuing court, the official gazette or the relevant government publication. Where another repository or a copy supplied by a contributor is used, identify its provenance and any limits on verification.

• Check quotations against the text. Mark omissions, additions and translations so that the original meaning remains clear.
• Give paragraph, page, section or article references where they help readers locate a proposition. A hyperlink should accompany an adequate citation.
• Check extracted or OCR-generated text against the source, particularly names, dates, citations, numbers and provisions. Retain a distinction between the source image and a transcription.
• Label unofficial translations and identify the original language. Explain uncertainty where a translation materially affects an argument.

News reports, commentary and search snippets may help locate a development. They should not substitute for a judgment or statute when attributing its wording or legal effect. If the full text is unavailable, state that limitation and keep the account within what the available material supports.

A judgment entry should identify the case, court or division, decision date, case number and reported citation where available. Keep the decision date distinct from the date of publication on ain.bd.

• Explain the material facts, procedural position, legal question and disposition without allowing background detail to obscure the issue.
• Separate the parties’ submissions from the court’s reasoning. Distinguish the holding from observations, interim directions and the author’s interpretation.
• Examine how earlier authorities are used. Identify the jurisdiction and precedential status of an authority where that affects the argument.
• Address relevant contrary reasoning and explain the limits of a proposed legal proposition. A conclusion should not extend beyond what the decision supports.

Appeals, stays, review proceedings and later treatment should be described only to the extent verified, with an appropriate source. Where subsequent history has not been checked, the record should say so. A subject label or search result does not determine a decision’s precedential weight.

A legislation record should identify the instrument, its number and year where available, the source used and the version preserved. Distinguish enactment, publication and commencement dates when they differ.

Keep the preserved text separate from commentary, annotations and any consolidated presentation. Amendments, repeal, replacement and commencement arrangements should be recorded when verified. Do not describe a text as the current law merely because it remains available online.

If a document is incomplete, poorly scanned or missing a schedule, disclose the limitation. A preserved copy provides access to a particular record; the entry should give readers enough information to establish what that record contains and when its status was checked.

Contributors should submit work they are entitled to publish, acknowledge the work of others and distinguish quotation, paraphrase and their own reasoning. Citations must support the propositions for which they are used. Fabricated authorities, misleading quotations and unattributed copying are unacceptable.

Criticism should engage with reasons, evidence and legal consequences. Represent a competing position fairly, address material objections and avoid unsupported personal allegations.

Authors should disclose relevant involvement in a case, professional relationships or other interests that could affect the assessment of their contribution. Confidentiality and anonymity must be respected. Preserve anonymisation in source material and omit unnecessary personal information.

Research, drafting and translation tools do not transfer responsibility away from the author. Substantive use of generative or automated assistance should be disclosed to the editor. Authorities, quotations and legal propositions must be checked against their sources; generated output is not an authority.

Editorial assessment should consider relevance, source quality, accuracy, clarity, the strength of the reasoning and compliance with these standards. A submission may require further evidence, revision or a narrower conclusion before publication.

Editorial decisions should remain independent of an author’s status or a preferred outcome in the dispute being discussed. An editor with a material conflict should not make the decision on that contribution. Any external peer review should be described accurately, including its scope.

Publication details should make authorship and the date of the entry clear. If an item is a preliminary account, translation, source record or later revision, identify it accordingly. Editing should improve accuracy and expression while preserving the distinction between the author’s position and the source.

Readers and contributors are encouraged to report errors, missing sources and later developments. A useful report identifies the entry, the passage in question, the proposed correction and any supporting material.

Minor typographical or formatting changes may be made without a separate notice. A change that materially affects facts, an authority, the reasoning or a conclusion should carry a dated note explaining what changed. A later judgment or legislative amendment should be identified as a subsequent development, rather than silently folded into the original account.

Where an entry cannot be relied on because of a substantial error or an integrity concern, an explanatory notice should make its status clear. Withdrawal or replacement should preserve an intelligible publication record, subject to necessary privacy or legal considerations.

These standards may be revised as the collection develops. Material revisions to this policy should be dated and explained.