Post-Publication Discussion Policy

Jurnal Laboratorium Khatulistiwa welcomes constructive scholarly discussion of its published articles. Readers and authors may raise questions, present evidence-based criticism, suggest alternative interpretations, or identify errors requiring editorial attention.

Publication does not end scholarly discussion. The journal encourages respectful and transparent exchanges that advance knowledge and maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

1. Scope of Discussion

Post-publication discussions must relate directly to an identifiable article published in the journal. Relevant contributions may address:

  • Interpretation of research findings, clinical implications, or theoretical arguments.
  • Research design, methodology, statistical analysis, or study limitations.
  • Evidence or literature that may affect the interpretation of findings.
  • Alternative explanations or perspectives relevant to midwifery and health sciences.
  • Factual errors, unclear statements, or concerns about research reproducibility.
  • Ethical or publication integrity concerns requiring editorial assessment.
    Disagreement with an article's findings or conclusions does not, by itself, constitute evidence of error or misconduct. Comments must present clear reasoning and engage fairly with the published work.

2. Submission of Comments

Comments should be submitted to the editorial office through the journal's Contact page. The subject line should read "Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title]".

Submissions should include:

  • The article title, author names, and DOI or article URL.
  • The commenter's name, institutional affiliation where applicable, and contact details.
  • A clear explanation of the issue, including relevant pages, sections, tables, or figures.
  • Supporting evidence, references, or analysis where appropriate.
  • Any relevant conflicts of interest.
  • Whether the submission is intended for public discussion or confidential editorial consideration.
    Comments should be concise, evidence-based, and sufficiently detailed for editorial assessment. There is no fixed expiry date for raising substantive concerns about published articles.
    Individuals raising sensitive concerns may request confidentiality. Anonymous reports may be considered when they provide specific and credible information, although anonymous allegations are not automatically eligible for publication as scholarly commentary.

3. Editorial Assessment

An editor without a relevant conflict of interest will assess each submission for relevance, accuracy, clarity, supporting evidence, and scholarly value. The journal may request revisions or consult independent experts when necessary.

Comments must address the research and its findings rather than attack individuals. The journal will not publish harassment, discriminatory language, unsupported personal accusations, promotional material, or unnecessary disclosure of confidential information.

Critical comments will not be rejected solely because they challenge the authors or the journal. However, submission does not guarantee publication.

Where inappropriate wording accompanies a credible scientific concern, the editor may request revisions while assessing the underlying evidence separately.

4. Author Responses

Authors will normally be invited to respond to substantive comments concerning their published articles. The editorial office will communicate the issues raised and provide a reasonable response period according to their complexity.

Responses should address the concerns directly, provide supporting evidence where appropriate, and acknowledge established errors or limitations. They must meet the same standards of accuracy, relevance, and respectful communication as the original comments.

Authors may request additional time with an appropriate explanation. Failure to respond does not establish that a criticism is correct or automatically prevent publication of a comment that meets the journal's standards. Authors cannot veto legitimate scholarly criticism.

5. Publication of Discussions

Accepted contributions may be published as a Comment, Author Response, or Editorial Note, as appropriate. These categories are intended for post-publication correspondence and are distinct from original research articles and review articles.

Published discussions will identify and link to the article concerned. Where feasible, the original article page will also link to the relevant discussion.

Comments and responses will undergo editorial assessment and may receive independent expert review when necessary. They will not be described as externally peer-reviewed unless such a process has taken place.

The journal may publish comments and responses together or separately. Further exchanges may be considered when they contribute substantial new evidence or analysis. Repetitive exchanges may be closed with an appropriate explanation.

Discussions on external scholarly platforms may inform editorial assessment. Readers seeking formal editorial action should contact the journal directly.

6. Errors and Research Integrity Concerns

Comments identifying possible errors or research misconduct will be assessed under the journal's relevant policies. Confidential allegations will not automatically be published as scholarly discussions.

Depending on the findings of the assessment:

  • Correction: Errors may require a correction when the article's principal findings remain reliable.
  • Expression of Concern: Significant unresolved concerns may require an expression of concern while further investigation is conducted.
  • Retraction: Established problems affecting the reliability or ethical integrity of the work may require retraction or other appropriate editorial action.
    Publishing a comment or author response does not replace a formal correction or other editorial notice when the published record requires amendment.
    Decisions will follow the journal's Research Misconduct Handling and Correction and Retraction policies. Scholarly disagreement alone is not grounds for retraction.

7. Communication and Appeals

The editorial office will acknowledge submissions when contact details are available and communicate decisions or requests for additional information. Assessment timelines depend on the complexity of the issues and the need for author responses or independent advice.

Anyone who believes that an editorial decision involved a factual error, a material procedural problem, or overlooked evidence may request reconsideration through the journal's Contact page. Appeals should identify the disputed decision and provide specific reasons and supporting information.

Appeals will be considered by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to the publisher for independent handling.