Post-Publication Discussion

1. Policy Statement

JIMS, published by Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo, is committed to promoting transparency, academic integrity, and constructive scholarly communication throughout the publication process, including after articles have been published.

The journal recognizes that scholarly evaluation does not end with publication. Post-publication discussion is an essential component of scientific communication, allowing researchers, readers, and academic communities to critically examine published findings, clarify methodological issues, provide alternative interpretations, and contribute to the continuous development of scientific knowledge.

JIMS encourages responsible, evidence-based, and respectful academic discussion concerning published articles. This policy is developed in accordance with the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

All post-publication discussions will be managed through transparent editorial procedures that ensure fairness, objectivity, academic freedom, and the integrity of the published scholarly record.

2. Objectives of Post-Publication Discussion

The Post-Publication Discussion Policy aims to:

Facilitate constructive scientific dialogue concerning articles published in JIMS.
Encourage critical evaluation of research methodologies, findings, interpretations, and conclusions.
Provide opportunities for readers to request clarification or present alternative scientific perspectives.
Enable authors to respond to substantive questions and academic criticism concerning their published research.
Promote transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in scholarly communication.
Identify potential inaccuracies or concerns that may require further editorial consideration.
Maintain the accuracy, credibility, and reliability of the scientific literature.

3. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

This policy applies to all scholarly articles published in JIMS, including research articles, review articles, and other academic contributions accepted by the journal.

Post-publication discussions may address:

Research methods, experimental designs, and analytical procedures.
Interpretation and validity of research findings.
Data presentation, statistical analysis, and research reproducibility.
Theoretical frameworks and scientific arguments.
Alternative explanations or interpretations of published results.
Research limitations and methodological considerations.
Significant developments or additional evidence relevant to previously published findings.
Potential factual inaccuracies requiring editorial clarification.

JIMS particularly welcomes discussions relevant to its academic scope, including plant science, soil science, crop production management, agrotechnology, and agricultural technology.

Discussions must primarily address the scientific content of published articles rather than the personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, or reputations of the authors.

4. Mechanisms for Post-Publication Discussion

JIMS provides opportunities for scholarly discussion through the following mechanisms:

a. Letters to the Editor

Readers and researchers may submit formal letters presenting scientific comments, questions, constructive criticism, or requests for clarification concerning published articles.

b. Scholarly Commentaries

The journal may consider commentaries that provide substantial academic analysis, alternative interpretations, or evidence-based discussion of previously published research.

c. Author Responses

Authors of published articles may be invited to respond to substantive questions or criticisms. Such responses should address the scientific issues raised and provide clarification or supporting evidence when appropriate.

d. Editorial Clarifications

The editorial team may issue clarifications when necessary to explain particular aspects of published research or resolve misunderstandings that affect the interpretation of an article.

e. External Scholarly Discussions

JIMS acknowledges that scholarly discussions may also occur through recognized academic platforms or moderated post-publication review forums, such as PubPeer.

Concerns raised through external platforms may be considered when they contain credible, relevant, and verifiable information. However, external comments do not automatically constitute formal journal correspondence, and JIMS does not control the moderation policies of third-party platforms.

5. Submission of Post-Publication Comments

Readers, researchers, and other interested parties may submit post-publication comments or scientific critiques to the Editorial Office.

Editorial Email: jims@umsida.ac.id

Journal Website: https://jims.umsida.ac.id/

Submissions should include:

The title and DOI or URL of the published article being discussed.
The name, institutional affiliation (where applicable), and contact information of the person submitting the discussion.
A clear description of the question, critique, or scientific issue being raised.
Supporting arguments, relevant evidence, or scholarly references.
A statement disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.

All submissions must be written in a professional academic manner and supported by reasonable scientific arguments.

Submissions containing personal attacks, discriminatory statements, defamatory allegations, confidential personal information, or unsupported accusations will not be accepted for public discussion.

Anonymous information may be considered when it raises credible concerns about research integrity, but anonymous allegations will ordinarily be handled through the journal's research misconduct procedures rather than published as ordinary scholarly correspondence.

There is no general time restriction on submitting substantial concerns about published research. However, the editorial team may prioritize discussions based on their scientific relevance, significance, and contribution to current knowledge.

6. Editorial Assessment and Moderation

All post-publication submissions will undergo preliminary editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the editorial team.

The assessment will consider:

Relevance to the published article and the journal's scope.
Scientific accuracy and the strength of supporting evidence.
Originality and significance of the arguments.
Clarity, coherence, and academic quality.
Compliance with publication ethics and professional communication standards.
Potential conflicts of interest involving the participants.

The journal will aim to acknowledge receipt of submissions within seven working days and conduct an initial assessment within 30 calendar days, where practicable.

Submissions may undergo additional independent editorial or expert review when specialized scientific assessment is required.

The editorial team may request revisions to improve clarity, accuracy, structure, or compliance with journal standards. Substantive editorial changes will be communicated to the contributor before publication.

JIMS reserves the right to decline publication of material that is irrelevant, repetitive, scientifically unsupported, abusive, misleading, or otherwise inconsistent with the principles of responsible scholarly discussion.

Editorial decisions must be based on academic merit and must not be influenced by personal relationships, institutional interests, or disagreement with particular scientific conclusions.

7. Author Notification and Right of Response

When a submitted critique raises substantive questions about a published article, JIMS will ordinarily contact the corresponding author and provide an opportunity to respond.

The author will normally be invited to submit an initial response within 21 calendar days of receiving the editorial notification.

Extensions may be granted when additional analysis, supporting documentation, or consultation with co-authors is reasonably necessary.

Author responses should:

Address the scientific questions or concerns raised.
Provide relevant explanations, methodological details, or supporting evidence.
Acknowledge errors or limitations when appropriate.
Maintain professional and respectful academic communication.
Disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Responses may be assessed by the editorial team or independent reviewers when necessary.

Failure to provide a response does not automatically invalidate the original publication. However, the absence of an author response will not necessarily prevent the publication of a scientifically justified critique.

The journal will seek to provide reasonable opportunities for all relevant parties to contribute to a balanced and constructive scientific discussion.

8. Publication and Accessibility of Discussions

Post-publication comments, letters, commentaries, and author responses accepted for publication may be made publicly accessible through the journal's official website.

Where technically supported by the publishing platform, the journal will establish clear links between published discussions and the original articles concerned.

Published contributions should identify the original article and provide sufficient bibliographic information to enable readers to understand the discussion.

The journal will indicate the editorial status of published correspondence, including whether it has undergone editorial screening or independent peer review.

Post-publication discussions are considered scholarly contributions but do not automatically modify, replace, or invalidate the original research findings.

JIMS seeks to preserve the accessibility and traceability of published discussions as part of the scholarly communication record.

9. Scientific Debate and Research Integrity Concerns

JIMS distinguishes legitimate scholarly disagreement from concerns involving possible errors or research misconduct.

Differences in scientific interpretation, methodological preferences, or theoretical perspectives do not necessarily indicate that a published article is incorrect or unethical.

Constructive scientific disagreements may be addressed through correspondence, author responses, or additional scholarly publications.

However, concerns suggesting substantial factual errors, unreliable results, plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, or other serious publication ethics violations will be assessed under the journal's relevant editorial policies.

When necessary, the journal may initiate further examination and apply appropriate measures, including:

a. Correction

A correction may be issued when an identifiable error requires amendment but the principal findings remain reliable.

b. Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when significant concerns about the reliability or integrity of a published article remain unresolved.

c. Retraction

A retraction may be issued when an article is determined to be substantially unreliable or affected by serious ethical violations that undermine the scholarly record.

These measures will be handled according to the journal's Correction and Retraction Policy and Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy, taking relevant COPE guidance into consideration.

A scientific critique alone does not automatically justify a correction or retraction.

10. Responsibilities of Editors, Authors, and Contributors

Editors

Editors are responsible for managing post-publication discussions impartially, maintaining scientific standards, identifying potential conflicts of interest, and ensuring appropriate editorial procedures.

Authors

Authors are expected to engage responsibly with substantive scientific criticism, provide clarification when reasonably requested, and cooperate in addressing significant concerns regarding their published work.

Contributors and Readers

Individuals submitting post-publication comments must ensure that their arguments are presented accurately, supported by relevant evidence, and communicated respectfully.

All participants must comply with applicable ethical standards regarding intellectual property, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and responsible academic communication.

11. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Editorial Independence

JIMS is committed to handling post-publication correspondence fairly and transparently while protecting confidential information.

Personal contact details, confidential research materials, and information relating to unresolved misconduct allegations will not be disclosed publicly without an appropriate basis.

Individuals directly involved in an editorial dispute will be given reasonable opportunities to explain their positions.

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must withdraw from handling the matter, and responsibility will be assigned to an independent editor or an appropriate publisher representative.

The journal maintains editorial independence and encourages academically justified criticism, including discussions that challenge previously published conclusions.

12. Editorial Decisions, Appeals, and Policy Review

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated independent editor is responsible for decisions concerning the acceptance, revision, or rejection of post-publication correspondence.

Contributors who believe that a decision involved a significant procedural error, conflict of interest, or failure to consider material evidence may request editorial reconsideration.

Such requests should be submitted in writing with supporting justification.

JIMS will evaluate requests for reconsideration impartially and may consult an independent editor or specialist when necessary.

The journal will periodically review this policy to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, and internationally recognized publication ethics standards.

The implementation of this policy is intended to promote open scientific dialogue while protecting the quality, credibility, and long-term reliability of research published in JIMS.