Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan (JIKA)

Post-Publication Discussion Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

Jurnal Ilmiah Kesehatan (JIKA) recognizes post-publication discussion as an important mechanism for maintaining the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. The journal welcomes constructive, evidence-based comments, scholarly criticism, and requests for clarification concerning articles published in JIKA.

Post-publication discussion may address the validity of research methods, the accuracy and interpretation of findings, the appropriateness of statistical analyses, the transparency of data reporting, the interpretation of conclusions, research ethics, and other matters relevant to the scientific quality and integrity of a published article.

All post-publication discussions must be conducted professionally, objectively, and respectfully, with a focus on scientific evidence rather than personal criticism.

2. Submission of Comments and Scientific Concerns

Readers, researchers, and other interested parties may submit comments or raise concerns regarding a published article by contacting the editorial office through the journal's official communication channels.

Submissions should include the following information:

  1. The title of the published article and its DOI or article URL.
  2. The specific section, statement, table, figure, result, or conclusion being discussed.
  3. A clear explanation of the scientific concern or proposed clarification.
  4. Supporting evidence, relevant references, calculations, or other documentation, where applicable.
  5. The name and institutional affiliation of the submitting party, together with contact information for editorial correspondence.

Comments should be specific, evidence-based, and relevant to the scientific content or publication integrity of the article. Anonymous submissions may be considered at the editor's discretion when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable evidence of a potentially serious concern.

The journal may request additional information or clarification before proceeding with an editorial assessment.

3. Editorial Assessment and Review Process

Upon receiving a comment or concern, the editorial team will conduct an initial assessment to determine its relevance, clarity, scientific merit, and suitability for further consideration.

The editor may take one or more of the following actions:

  1. Request clarification or additional supporting evidence from the submitting party.
  2. Invite the original author or authors to provide a response.
  3. Seek advice from independent reviewers, subject experts, or relevant research ethics specialists.
  4. Assess the matter in consultation with the editorial board or other appropriate parties, where necessary.
  5. Decline to proceed with comments that are unsupported, irrelevant, defamatory, repetitive without new evidence, or inconsistent with the journal's editorial scope.

The assessment will be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the concern. The journal will seek to ensure procedural fairness, confidentiality where appropriate, and impartial consideration of the evidence.

4. Right of Reply and Author Response

The author or authors of the article concerned will ordinarily be given an opportunity to respond to substantive comments before the journal reaches a final editorial decision or publishes the discussion.

Authors should provide a clear, evidence-based response addressing each material point raised. Where appropriate, the response may include additional explanations, supporting data, methodological clarification, references, or corrections to factual inaccuracies.

The editorial office will establish a reasonable response period based on the complexity and urgency of the matter and communicate the applicable deadline to the authors. If additional time is required, authors may request an extension with an appropriate justification. Any extension will be subject to editorial approval.

If the authors do not respond within the specified period, the editor may proceed with the assessment based on the available evidence. The absence of a response will not, by itself, be interpreted as proof of misconduct or as confirmation that the concern is valid.

Where a response is received, the editor may seek further clarification or independent advice before determining the appropriate course of action.

5. Publication of Comments and Responses

When a comment is considered scientifically relevant and suitable for publication, JIKA may publish it as a Letter to the Editor, a Post-Publication Commentary, or another appropriate scholarly communication format supported by the journal's publication system.

Where appropriate, the original authors' response may be published alongside or linked to the comment to provide readers with a balanced scientific discussion. The comment and response should identify the original article through its title, DOI, or a direct link to the published article.

Comments and responses will undergo editorial assessment and may be subject to independent peer review when considered necessary by the editor. Publication is not automatic and remains subject to the journal's editorial decision.

Before publication, the editorial team will assess the scientific relevance, clarity, supporting evidence, and compliance of the proposed comment or response with the journal's publication ethics requirements. The journal may request revisions or decline publication if the submission does not meet these requirements.

Comments and responses must comply with the journal's policies on publication ethics, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and respectful scholarly communication. Personal attacks, unsupported allegations, and content unrelated to the scientific or ethical issue under discussion will not be accepted.

Where the journal's publication platform does not support a dedicated comment or response article type, the editor may determine an alternative publication format consistent with the journal's editorial procedures.

6. Editorial Actions Following Post-Publication Discussion

Following the assessment of comments, author responses, and any additional evidence, the editor will determine whether further action is necessary.

Possible outcomes include:

  1. No Further Action: When the concern is not substantiated or does not warrant a change to the published record.
  2. Editorial Clarification: When additional explanation is sufficient to address a misunderstanding or ambiguity.
  3. Correction Notice: When a verified error requires correction in accordance with the journal's correction policy.
  4. Expression of Concern: When a potentially serious issue has arisen but the available evidence is insufficient to reach a final conclusion, or an investigation remains unresolved.
  5. Retraction: When the evidence establishes that retraction is warranted under the journal's retraction policy and applicable publication ethics standards.

The editor will document the rationale for significant editorial decisions and communicate the outcome to the relevant parties, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements.

7. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern is a formal editorial notice used when there is a credible and potentially serious concern about a published article, but the available evidence does not yet permit a definitive decision.

An Expression of Concern may be considered when a relevant investigation is ongoing, essential evidence remains unavailable, or the journal cannot yet determine whether the article's findings are reliable.

The notice should identify the article concerned, describe the nature of the concern as specifically as can appropriately be disclosed, and explain the status of the matter without presenting unverified allegations as established facts.

An Expression of Concern is distinct from a correction notice and a retraction. It does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred or that the article must be retracted.

JIKA may review the notice when additional evidence becomes available and determine whether it should remain in place, be updated, or be followed by another editorial action. Where appropriate, the notice will be linked to the original article to ensure transparency and traceability.

8. Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

If post-publication discussion raises credible concerns about research misconduct, data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, unethical research practices, or other serious breaches of publication ethics, the editor may initiate further inquiries and contact the authors' affiliated institutions or other appropriate bodies when warranted.

The journal will assess the available evidence fairly and will not treat an allegation alone as proof of misconduct. Where an institutional investigation is required, JIKA may consider the investigation's findings alongside its own editorial assessment.

Any correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction resulting from such matters will be handled in accordance with the journal's applicable policies and relevant publication ethics guidance.

9. Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Professional Conduct

All parties involved in post-publication discussion are expected to disclose relevant conflicts of interest and to communicate in a professional and respectful manner.

The journal will handle personal information and confidential correspondence responsibly. Information will be shared only as appropriate for the assessment and resolution of the matter, subject to applicable ethical, legal, and institutional requirements.

Editors and reviewers involved in assessing a concern must declare relevant conflicts of interest and, where necessary, recuse themselves from the process to preserve impartiality.

10. Relationship with Other Editorial and Publication Ethics Policies

This policy complements JIKA's editorial and publication ethics policies and should be read in conjunction with the following documents:

The Peer Review Policy governs the evaluation of manuscripts before publication, whereas this policy addresses comments, scientific criticism, and concerns raised after an article has been published.

Corrections to published articles will follow the Article Correction Notice policy. Decisions concerning article retraction will follow the Article Withdrawal and Retraction policy and relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

Post-publication discussion does not automatically result in a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction. Each matter will be assessed individually according to the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the applicable editorial procedures.

11. Policy Review

JIKA will review this policy periodically and revise it when necessary to maintain consistency with the journal's editorial procedures, publication ethics standards, and recognized scholarly publishing practices.

This policy should be read in conjunction with the following related journal policies:

These policies collectively support JIKA's commitment to transparent editorial processes, responsible scholarly communication, fair handling of scientific concerns, and the integrity of the published scientific record.