Post-Publication Discussion

1. General Policy

JUISI: Jurnal Ilmiah Sistem Informasi recognizes that scholarly evaluation and academic discussion continue beyond the publication of research articles. The journal encourages transparent, constructive, and evidence-based discussions to strengthen the reliability, interpretation, and contribution of published research.

In accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), JUISI provides opportunities for authors, readers, researchers, and other interested parties to raise questions, offer scholarly criticism, and discuss findings presented in published articles.

2. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussions may address:

  • Research methodology, data analysis, and interpretation of findings.

  • Theoretical frameworks, scientific arguments, and research conclusions.

  • Accuracy and reproducibility of reported results.

  • Alternative interpretations supported by scientific evidence.

  • Relevant additional findings or methodological considerations.

  • Potential errors, inconsistencies, or ethical concerns affecting published research.

All discussions must focus on the scholarly content of the article and contribute meaningfully to academic knowledge.

3. Submission of Comments and Scholarly Critiques

Readers and researchers wishing to initiate a post-publication discussion may contact the JUISI Editorial Office through the journal's official communication channels.

Submissions should include:

  • The title, author(s), and DOI or URL of the article concerned.

  • A clear description of the issue, question, or scholarly criticism.

  • Supporting evidence, references, or relevant documentation.

  • The submitter's identity and contact information for editorial correspondence.

  • Disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest.

Comments must be objective, academically relevant, respectful, and supported by verifiable evidence. Personal attacks, discriminatory statements, defamatory allegations, or unsupported accusations will not be accepted as scholarly contributions.

4. Editorial Assessment and Moderation

The editorial team evaluates post-publication comments based on their relevance, scientific validity, clarity, supporting evidence, and compliance with publication ethics.

Depending on the nature of the submission, the editorial team may:

  • Request clarification or additional supporting evidence.

  • Invite the original authors to provide a response.

  • Consult independent reviewers or subject-matter experts.

  • Facilitate constructive scholarly correspondence.

  • Consider publishing a formal commentary or author response when appropriate.

The journal reserves the right to decline submissions that do not meet its academic or ethical standards.

5. Author Responses and Scholarly Dialogue

Authors whose published work is subject to substantive scholarly criticism will normally be given an opportunity to respond and provide clarification, supporting evidence, or additional analysis.

Author responses should address the scientific issues raised and maintain professional academic communication.

Where appropriate, the journal may publish scholarly comments and corresponding author responses to ensure transparent and balanced academic discussion.

The absence of an author response does not automatically establish the validity of a criticism or prevent the editorial team from assessing credible concerns.

6. Research Integrity and Corrective Actions

When post-publication discussion identifies significant errors, unreliable findings, or possible violations of publication ethics, the editorial team will evaluate the matter in accordance with the journal's applicable policies.

Depending on the available evidence, editorial actions may include:

  • Publication of a correction or clarification.

  • Issuance of an Expression of Concern.

  • Investigation of suspected research or publication misconduct.

  • Retraction of an article when justified by substantial evidence.

Such actions are governed by the journal's Correction and Retraction Policy and Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy.

7. Transparency, Confidentiality, and Editorial Responsibility

JUISI is committed to handling post-publication discussions fairly, independently, and transparently.

The editorial team will protect confidential information, manage potential conflicts of interest, and ensure that substantive concerns receive appropriate consideration.

Scholarly critiques and author responses accepted for publication will be clearly identified and, where applicable, linked to the original article to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

Confidential or anonymous reports of suspected misconduct may be assessed based on the available evidence and handled through the journal's research misconduct procedures.

8. Commitment to Continuous Scholarly Evaluation

JUISI considers post-publication discussion an essential component of responsible scholarly communication. Constructive criticism, academic debate, and evidence-based clarification contribute to continuous scientific evaluation and the advancement of Information Systems research.

The journal encourages all members of the academic community to participate responsibly in post-publication discussions while upholding scientific integrity, professional conduct, and mutual respect.

Reference: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices: Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices