Post-Publication Discussion
Post-Publication Discussion Policy
1. Policy Statement
Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik recognises that scholarly evaluation continues after an article has been published. Post-publication discussion is an important part of academic communication, enabling readers and researchers to question, clarify, critically evaluate, and further develop published research.
The journal welcomes constructive, evidence-based, and respectful discussion of published articles within its scope, including government studies, public administration, public policy, political science, governance, and related social sciences.
This policy establishes procedures for submitting scholarly comments, responding to published criticism, and addressing concerns arising after publication. It is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The journal is committed to fairness, editorial independence, transparency, confidentiality where appropriate, and the preservation of an accurate scholarly record.
2. Forms of Post-Publication Discussion
Post-publication discussion may take the following forms:
2.1. Comments or Letters to the Editor
Readers, researchers, and other interested parties may submit scholarly comments on previously published articles. Comments may address theoretical arguments, research methods, data interpretation, analytical limitations, conclusions, or the implications of the findings.
2.2. Authors' Replies
Authors of the original article may respond to substantive comments, criticisms, questions, or alternative interpretations raised by readers. The journal encourages constructive dialogue between the original authors and the scholarly community.
2.3. Scholarly Clarifications and Additional Evidence
Contributions may provide relevant additional evidence, alternative explanations, methodological observations, or clarifications that help readers better understand or evaluate a published article.
2.4. Research Integrity Concerns
Reports concerning possible plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, or other serious concerns affecting the integrity of a published article are handled separately under the journal's Allegation of Research Misconduct and Correction and Retraction policies.
Post-publication discussion is not intended to replace formal procedures for investigating suspected research misconduct or correcting the scholarly record.
3. Requirements for Submissions
Comments and replies submitted for consideration must meet the following requirements:
-
Relevance: The submission must directly address an article previously published in Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik.
-
Scholarly contribution: The submission should raise a meaningful academic question, provide constructive criticism, offer an alternative interpretation, or contribute relevant evidence.
-
Evidence-based argumentation: Claims must be supported by appropriate evidence, references, logical reasoning, or methodological explanations.
-
Professional language: Submissions must be respectful and must not contain personal attacks, defamatory statements, discriminatory language, harassment, or unsupported allegations.
-
Originality: The submission must be original and must not infringe copyright or duplicate material published elsewhere without appropriate disclosure.
-
Conflict of interest: Contributors must disclose financial, professional, personal, institutional, or other interests that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their comments.
-
Article identification: The submission must clearly identify the original article by title, author(s), publication year, and DOI or article URL, where available.
As a general guideline, comments should not exceed 1,000 words and 10 references, excluding references from the word count where appropriate. The editorial team may consider longer submissions when justified by the scholarly significance or complexity of the issue.
Anonymous scholarly comments will not normally be considered for publication. However, confidential or anonymous reports raising credible research integrity concerns may be considered under the relevant ethics policy.
4. Submission Procedure
Comments and replies should be submitted through the journal's official Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform or the official editorial contact channel indicated on the journal website.
Submissions should include:
-
The title of the original article and its DOI or URL, where available.
-
The title and full text of the proposed comment or reply.
-
The contributor's name, institutional affiliation, and contact details.
-
Relevant references and supporting evidence.
-
A conflict of interest declaration.
The editorial office may request additional information when necessary to assess the submission.
5. Editorial Assessment and Review
All post-publication contributions are subject to editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates each submission according to its scholarly relevance, evidential basis, originality, clarity, tone, and compliance with publication ethics.
The editorial process normally consists of the following stages:
-
Acknowledgement: The editorial office acknowledges receipt of a submission within seven working days.
-
Initial screening: The editor determines whether the submission is relevant, sufficiently substantiated, and suitable for scholarly consideration.
-
Expert assessment: Where necessary, the editor may consult an independent subject expert or reviewer.
-
Invitation to respond: If a comment raises substantive issues concerning a published article, the original corresponding author will normally be invited to provide a response within 30 calendar days.
-
Evaluation of the response: The editor assesses the comment and reply for scholarly relevance, accuracy, fairness, and clarity.
-
Editorial decision: The editor decides whether to accept, request revisions to, or decline the proposed comment or reply.
-
Publication: Accepted comments and replies may be published together where practicable, with clear references and links to the original article.
These timeframes are indicative editorial targets rather than guarantees. Additional time may be required when expert advice, further evidence, or complex ethical considerations are involved.
If the original authors do not respond within the specified period, the editor may proceed with the assessment of the comment and, where appropriate, publish it with a statement indicating that the authors were invited to respond but did not provide a reply within the allotted time.
6. Editorial Decisions
The journal may make one of the following decisions regarding a post-publication submission:
-
Accept: The submission meets the journal's requirements and is suitable for publication.
-
Accept subject to revision: The contributor must address editorial comments before publication.
-
Request independent assessment: Specialist evaluation is necessary before a decision can be made.
-
Decline: The submission is outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly merit or evidence, duplicates existing discussion, breaches ethical standards, or otherwise fails to meet the journal's requirements.
Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit and publication ethics, not on the contributor's institutional affiliation, professional status, political position, or disagreement with the original authors.
The original authors must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive criticism. However, they are not entitled to prevent the publication of a legitimate scholarly comment merely because they disagree with its conclusions.
7. Publication and Linking
Accepted comments and replies will be published in a manner that makes their relationship to the original article clear.
Where supported by the journal's publishing infrastructure, each contribution may receive its own DOI and be linked to the original article through the journal website and relevant metadata services.
The published discussion should identify the original article, the authors of the comment or reply, the publication date, and relevant references. The journal may publish comments and replies together to promote balanced and transparent scholarly dialogue.
Publication of a comment does not necessarily mean that the journal endorses every argument expressed in it. Contributors remain responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their own statements.
8. Corrections and Research Integrity Concerns
If post-publication discussion identifies a significant factual error, methodological problem, unreliable finding, or potential breach of research ethics, the journal will assess the matter under its relevant editorial policies.
Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the concern, possible actions include:
-
Requesting clarification from the original authors.
-
Publishing a correction, erratum, corrigendum, or other appropriate notice.
-
Publishing an expression of concern when substantial doubts remain unresolved.
-
Initiating a formal investigation or referring the matter to the relevant institution or competent authority.
-
Retracting the article when the evidence and applicable ethical standards justify retraction.
The published version of record must not be altered silently. Substantive corrections and other changes to the scholarly record must be documented through an appropriate formal notice.
Honest errors should be corrected to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly literature. Corrections and retractions are not intended primarily as punishment but as measures to preserve research integrity.
9. Roles and Responsibilities
Readers and contributors are expected to raise concerns responsibly, provide supporting evidence, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and engage in respectful academic discussion.
Original authors are expected to respond to legitimate scholarly criticism in good faith, provide clarification or supporting evidence where reasonably necessary, and cooperate with appropriate correction procedures.
Editors are responsible for assessing submissions impartially, ensuring that the original authors have a reasonable opportunity to respond, maintaining confidentiality where appropriate, and documenting editorial decisions.
The publisher supports the editorial team in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record, ensuring that corrections and related notices are appropriately linked to the original articles, and updating publication metadata where necessary and technically supported.
10. Appeals and Complaints
Contributors who wish to challenge an editorial decision concerning a post-publication submission may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official contact channel.
An appeal should identify the decision being challenged and provide relevant evidence, substantive arguments, or information concerning a possible procedural irregularity.
Appeals will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately independent editor who was not materially involved in the original decision, where practicable. If a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it may be referred to an uninvolved senior editorial board member or the publisher.
The journal will communicate the outcome of the appeal to the relevant parties. An appeal does not automatically suspend measures necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
11. Confidentiality and Record Keeping
The journal handles correspondence and supporting documentation confidentially to the extent appropriate to the nature of the case and applicable legal requirements.
Submissions intended for publication may become part of the public scholarly record if accepted. Confidential reports concerning potential misconduct will be handled separately from public comments and shared only with parties who need the information to assess or resolve the matter.
The journal maintains appropriate records of submissions, editorial assessments, author responses, decisions, and subsequent actions in accordance with its record-management practices.
12. Reference Guidelines
This policy is informed by the publication ethics guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including its Core Practices and guidance concerning corrections and retractions.
Further information is available from:
Jurnal Pemerintahan dan Politik may revise this policy as necessary to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, and research integrity standards.
