Post-Publication Discussion

1. General Policy and Commitment to Scholarly Dialogue

Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian (JIIP) is committed to maintaining the integrity, accuracy, transparency, and scientific reliability of its published scholarly content. The journal recognises that scientific evaluation continues after publication and that constructive scholarly discussion contributes to the verification, interpretation, improvement, and responsible application of research findings.
JIIP implements this policy in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practice on Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections, which requires journals to provide opportunities for post-publication debate and establish mechanisms for correcting, revising, or retracting published articles when necessary.
The journal welcomes evidence-based comments, methodological critiques, requests for clarification, alternative scientific interpretations, and substantiated concerns regarding articles published in JIIP. Such contributions must focus on scientific content, research quality, methodological validity, data interpretation, and other matters relevant to the scholarly record.
JIIP follows the principles described in the COPE guidance on Handling of Post-Publication Critiques, which recognises constructive criticism as a legitimate component of scholarly communication and encourages transparent procedures for evaluating critiques and facilitating appropriate responses from original authors.

2. Objectives of Post-Publication Discussion

The primary purpose of post-publication discussion is to facilitate constructive scientific exchanges concerning research findings that have already entered the scholarly literature. Such exchanges may strengthen research interpretation, identify methodological limitations, clarify ambiguous findings, introduce relevant evidence, and support the continued development of agricultural knowledge.
Post-publication critiques may provide alternative interpretations of published findings, identify limitations in research design, or raise legitimate concerns about the accuracy and reliability of reported results. The COPE guidance on the purpose of post-publication critiques recognises these exchanges as opportunities for readers and researchers to contribute to informed scholarly discussion.
JIIP aims to ensure that post-publication discussions contribute meaningfully to scientific understanding rather than personal disputes, unsupported allegations, or attempts to influence editorial decisions through inappropriate pressure.

3. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

This policy applies to scientific comments and concerns relating to articles published in JIIP, including original research articles and other manuscript categories formally accepted by the journal. Discussions may address the scientific validity, methodology, interpretation, presentation, ethical compliance, and reproducibility of published research.
In agricultural research, post-publication discussions may concern field experiment designs, crop productivity measurements, agricultural input treatments, soil analyses, plant protection methods, agricultural machinery performance, livestock research, food processing experiments, agricultural extension studies, and agricultural socio-economic investigations.
Comments may also address inconsistencies in statistical analysis, incomplete methodological explanations, limitations of sampling procedures, discrepancies between data and conclusions, or the interpretation of findings in relation to existing agricultural research.
Concerns involving plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship, or other potential research misconduct will be evaluated under the journal's applicable publication ethics procedures and the COPE Core Practices on Allegations of Misconduct and Post-Publication Corrections.

4. Mechanisms for Submitting Post-Publication Comments

JIIP provides opportunities for readers, researchers, authors, and other interested parties to submit evidence-based post-publication comments through the journal's official editorial communication channels.
Comments may be submitted as requests for clarification, scholarly critiques, proposed correspondence, or documented concerns requiring editorial assessment. Authors of critiques should identify the relevant published article and clearly describe the scientific issue under consideration.
The COPE Core Practice on Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections recognises several mechanisms for scholarly debate, including discussion on a journal's website, letters to the editor, and appropriate externally moderated discussion platforms.
Readers wishing to initiate a formal discussion may contact the editorial office through the journal's official contact information. Submission of a comment does not automatically guarantee its publication as a separate article or editorial correspondence.

5. Requirements for Scholarly Critiques

Post-publication critiques must present clear scientific arguments, identify the specific article or findings under discussion, and provide relevant supporting evidence. Comments should distinguish verified facts, methodological interpretations, hypotheses, and unresolved questions.
A critique should demonstrate substantive scholarly value by identifying an issue that merits clarification, further examination, scientific discussion, or appropriate editorial action. The COPE guidance on evaluating post-publication critiques recommends assessing whether submitted criticism is constructive, relevant, appropriately supported, and useful to the research community.
Critiques must use professional and respectful language. Personal attacks, defamatory allegations, discriminatory statements, unsupported accusations of misconduct, irrelevant promotional material, and deliberate misrepresentation of published research are not acceptable.
Authors of critiques must provide accurate references and disclose relevant competing interests. When comments include additional research data, figures, or analyses, such materials must comply with applicable requirements concerning research integrity, copyright, ethical approval, confidentiality, and data reliability.

6. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon receiving a post-publication critique, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will conduct an initial assessment of its relevance, scientific substance, clarity, supporting evidence, and compliance with the journal's ethical standards.
The editorial team will consider whether the critique identifies a legitimate scientific issue, provides reasonable grounds for further discussion, or raises concerns that require a formal investigation or corrective editorial action.
The journal applies the COPE Flowchart on Handling of Post-Publication Critiques, which recommends that editors consider the relevance and scientific value of criticism, identify potentially defamatory content, and determine an appropriate route for further evaluation.
Where a critique requires further clarification, the editorial team may request additional evidence, supporting references, revision of unsupported statements, or removal of inappropriate language before proceeding.
The journal may decline to publish comments that lack scientific relevance, contain unsupported personal accusations, or fail to satisfy its editorial requirements. A decision not to publish a formal critique does not remove the journal's obligation to consider credible evidence of serious errors or research misconduct.

7. Scientific Review of Post-Publication Critiques

Post-publication critiques may undergo editorial assessment or independent expert review when necessary to establish the scientific validity, significance, or implications of the issues raised.
The COPE guidance on the review of post-publication critiques and author responses recognises that formal critiques and corresponding replies may be peer reviewed and revised before publication.
The editorial team may seek assessments from independent researchers with relevant expertise in the scientific methods, statistical procedures, technical findings, or subject matter under discussion.
Editors and reviewers involved in evaluating critiques must disclose relevant competing interests and maintain the confidentiality of unpublished correspondence or supporting information.
Scientific disagreement alone does not constitute research misconduct. The journal must distinguish legitimate differences in interpretation from demonstrable factual errors, unreliable findings, and breaches of publication ethics.

8. Right of Original Authors to Respond

When a critique raises substantive scientific or methodological issues, JIIP may invite the authors of the original article to provide a written response, explanation, or supporting documentation.
The COPE guidance on author responses to post-publication critiques supports providing original authors with an opportunity to respond and facilitating constructive exchanges that clarify the scientific issues under consideration.
Original authors should address the substantive concerns raised and provide supporting evidence when necessary. Responses may include methodological clarification, additional analysis, explanation of research limitations, or acknowledgement of errors.
The editorial team may establish reasonable deadlines for responses and inform the parties when additional time is required. Communication should remain professional, focused on scientific evidence, and appropriately documented.
Failure of the original authors to respond does not automatically invalidate a critique or prevent the journal from considering publication of constructive commentary or taking necessary action to protect the scholarly record.

9. Publication of Critiques and Author Responses

JIIP may publish an accepted scholarly critique, author response, or related correspondence when the material contributes meaningfully to scientific understanding and satisfies the journal's editorial requirements.
Published critiques and responses should identify the original article clearly and provide sufficient bibliographic information to enable readers to locate the research under discussion.
The COPE guidance on publishing post-publication correspondence recognises that formal critiques and responses can contribute to scholarly discourse and may be linked to published research through journal and bibliographic records.
Where technically feasible, the journal should establish clear electronic links between the original article, published critique, author response, and any subsequent editorial notice to preserve the context of the scholarly exchange.
JIIP retains editorial responsibility for determining whether additional correspondence is necessary to clarify the scientific record or whether the substantive issues have been adequately addressed.

10. Correction of Published Articles

JIIP may publish a correction when a published article contains an identifiable error that requires amendment but does not substantially invalidate the article's central findings or conclusions.
Corrections may address relevant errors in data presentation, statistical reporting, tables, figures, methodological descriptions, author information, citations, or other components of a published article.
The COPE Retraction Guidelines distinguish errors that can be corrected from problems that substantially undermine research reliability and may therefore require retraction.
A published correction should identify the original article, describe the error and the necessary amendment, and clarify whether the change affects the article's scientific interpretation or conclusions.
Corrections must be managed transparently. Substantial changes to published research must not be introduced silently in ways that conceal the original error or prevent readers from understanding the editorial record.

11. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when credible evidence raises serious questions about the reliability, integrity, or ethical acceptability of a published article, but the available information is insufficient to justify a definitive correction or retraction.
According to the COPE Retraction Guidelines concerning Expressions of Concern, such notices may be appropriate when investigations remain incomplete, evidence is inconclusive, or unresolved concerns about research reliability require public attention.
An expression of concern should clearly identify the affected article and explain the nature of the unresolved issue without presenting unverified allegations as established facts.
The journal may update the publication record when additional reliable evidence becomes available. Subsequent action may include a correction, retraction, or another appropriate notice indicating that the concern has been resolved.

12. Retraction of Published Articles

JIIP may retract a published article when reliable evidence demonstrates that its findings are substantially unreliable, its central conclusions are invalid, or serious publication integrity violations make continued reliance on the article inappropriate.
The COPE Retraction Guidelines explain that retraction serves primarily to correct the scholarly literature and alert readers to unreliable or seriously flawed publications rather than to punish authors.
Retraction may be warranted in circumstances involving fabricated or falsified data, serious plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, or other substantiated problems that materially compromise the validity or integrity of a published article.
A retraction notice must identify the affected publication, explain the reasons for retraction, and clearly indicate the article's retracted status. The COPE guidance on the visibility and linkage of retraction notices recommends maintaining clear connections between notices, original publications, and relevant bibliographic records.
Retracted articles should ordinarily remain accessible with prominent retraction labels to preserve the historical scholarly record. Removal of full-text content should be reserved for exceptional circumstances involving compelling legal, privacy, or public safety considerations.

13. Allegations of Research Misconduct

When post-publication discussion reveals credible concerns about research misconduct, JIIP will assess the matter under its Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy rather than relying solely on ordinary scholarly correspondence procedures.
Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, redundant publication, or peer-review manipulation may require documentary assessment, communication with the authors, consultation with experts, or institutional investigation.
The COPE Guidelines on Cooperation Between Research Institutions and Journals distinguish the responsibilities of institutions for investigating research conduct from those of journals for safeguarding the reliability of published scholarly records.
JIIP will evaluate allegations using relevant evidence, maintain appropriate confidentiality, and give affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. The journal may contact the relevant research institution when formal investigation is necessary.
Editorial actions involving correction, expression of concern, or retraction will be determined according to the reliability of the published findings and the evidence available, regardless of whether intentional misconduct has been established.

14. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Authors of critiques, original article authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial competing interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the evaluation of post-publication concerns.
The COPE guidance on handling post-publication critiques identifies competing interests among critique authors, original authors, handling editors, and reviewers as matters requiring consideration during editorial assessment.
An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must not independently determine the outcome of a critique or related complaint. Responsibility should be assigned to another appropriately qualified and impartial editor.
Editorial decisions must rely on the scientific merits of the critique, the available evidence, the relevance of the issues raised, and the journal's publication ethics requirements.

15. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Responsible Communication

JIIP will manage post-publication correspondence fairly and maintain confidentiality when information relates to unpublished research, protected personal information, sensitive institutional records, or an ongoing research integrity investigation.
The editorial team will not suppress credible scientific criticism solely because it challenges the conclusions of a published article, the reputation of the original authors, or a previous editorial decision.
In accordance with the COPE recommendations for constructive post-publication dialogue, the journal will distinguish scientific criticism from personal accusations and seek to ensure that the discussion remains focused on substantive scholarly issues.
The journal may request revisions to comments containing inappropriate language or unsupported allegations. Where necessary, editors may consult the publisher or obtain advice about legal and ethical risks associated with publication.

16. Complaints and Appeals

Individuals who disagree with the journal's handling of a post-publication critique or related editorial decision may submit a reasoned complaint or appeal through the journal's official communication channels.
The COPE Core Practice on Complaints and Appeals recommends that journals maintain clearly described procedures for handling concerns about editorial decisions, journal staff, editorial boards, and publishers.
Appeals should identify the decision under dispute, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant supporting information. Where practicable, the appeal should be evaluated by an individual who was not responsible for the initial disputed decision.
A request for reconsideration does not automatically require reversal of the original decision. JIIP will determine whether further assessment is justified by new evidence, a material factual error, or a relevant procedural concern.

17. Documentation and Public Accessibility

JIIP should maintain appropriate electronic records of post-publication critiques, editorial assessments, author responses, expert consultations, relevant correspondence, and resulting editorial decisions.
Published critiques, responses, corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices should be clearly identified and linked to the relevant original articles whenever technically feasible.
The COPE Core Practice on Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections establishes the need for mechanisms that allow continuing scholarly debate and appropriate amendments to published literature.
Confidential records relating to ongoing research integrity investigations must be distinguished from publicly accessible editorial notices. The journal should disclose information necessary to protect the scholarly record while respecting applicable confidentiality and data protection obligations.

18. Policy Implementation and Continuous Review

The Editor-in-Chief, editorial team, and publisher of JIIP are responsible for implementing this Post-Publication Discussion Policy within their respective areas of authority.
The journal will seek to manage scholarly critiques, author responses, and corrective editorial actions consistently, fairly, and transparently. Procedures should remain aligned with the journal's Publication Ethics, Allegations of Research Misconduct, Conflict of Interest Policy, Complaints and Appeals Policy, and other applicable editorial requirements.
JIIP may periodically update this policy to reflect developments in scholarly publishing standards, research integrity practices, scientific communication, and relevant ethical guidance.
The journal's post-publication procedures are guided by the COPE Core Practices, the COPE Guidance on Handling of Post-Publication Critiques, and the COPE Retraction Guidelines.
By publishing, commenting on, or responding to scholarly work in Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian, contributors are expected to uphold the principles of evidence-based scientific discussion, respectful academic communication, transparency, accountability, and research integrity established in this policy.