INFORMATION
Post Publication Discussion
POST PUBLICATION DISCUSSION AND SCHOLARLY CRITIQUE
Scope and access
CITIZEN : Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin Indonesia welcomes evidence-based critique, alternative interpretations, replication findings and requests for clarification about published articles. Readers may send a letter or commentary through OJS, identifying it in the cover letter, or email info@das-institute.com with the subject “Post-publication discussion – [article DOI]”. A website comment function is not required to use this route.
Submission requirements
Identify the article, the specific issue, supporting analysis or references, and any competing interests. Include a name, affiliation if applicable and contact details. Critique should address the work and remain respectful. Personal attacks, unsupported accusations, confidential personal data and promotional content are unsuitable. No fixed time limit excludes a well-founded concern about the record.
Editorial assessment and author response
An unconflicted editor assesses relevance and evidence; technical claims may receive external expert review. Authors of the original article are normally invited to reply within twenty-one calendar days, with reasonable extensions and notification of material delays. An accepted critique may be published without a reply when authors decline or do not respond; the absence of a reply is explained. Anonymous integrity reports are considered under the misconduct policy rather than treated as signed correspondence for publication.
Publication and record links
Accepted commentary and replies are clearly labelled and linked to the original article. Editorially published discussion is distinguished from unreviewed external commentary. The editor may seek clarification or reject material that does not meet scholarly standards, giving a reason. Substantive concerns raised on external platforms may also be assessed on their evidence.
Escalation
Discussion that reveals a possible error or ethical breach is routed to the relevant correction or misconduct procedure. A published debate does not replace a necessary formal notice. Readers may appeal a handling decision by identifying new evidence or a procedural concern, using the independent assessment route described in the misconduct policy.
References
