Post-Publication Discussion

Jurnal Sinergitas PKM dan CSR believes that publication is not the end of the scholarly conversation. Readers, practitioners and community partners may notice things after an article appears: errors, unclear reporting, or results that differ from their own experience. The journal welcomes such feedback as part of keeping the published record accurate and trustworthy. This policy follows the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. What May Be Discussed

Post-publication discussion may address any aspect of a published article, including:

  • the design, methods or implementation of the community service or CSR program described;
  • the accuracy of data, figures, references or factual statements;
  • claims about program outcomes or community impact, and whether the evidence supports them;
  • ethical aspects of the activity, such as consent and the involvement of community members;
  • alternative interpretations, or related experiences from similar programs.

Contributions should be relevant, supported by evidence or reasoning, and written professionally. The journal will not consider anonymous submissions, personal attacks, defamatory statements, unsupported accusations or promotional content.

2. How to Submit

Comments should be sent to the Editorial Office at redaksi.pkmcsr@uph.edu with the subject line “Post-Publication Discussion – [Article Title]”. Please include:

  • your full name, institution and contact details;
  • the article’s title, authors, volume/issue and DOI;
  • a clear description of the issue, with supporting evidence or references;
  • what you are asking for, if anything: a clarification, a correction, or the publication of your comment.

Readers who want their comment considered for publication may submit it as a Letter to the Editor of no more than 1,000 words.

3. Editorial Assessment

The Editorial Office will acknowledge every submission within 7 working days. The Editor-in-Chief then assesses it, consulting members of the Editorial Board and, where specialist knowledge is needed, independent experts.

The assessment considers relevance, the strength of the evidence, and how significant the issue is for the reliability of the article. The editors distinguish between two kinds of concern:

  • scholarly differences of opinion, which are a normal part of academic exchange and do not in themselves mean an article is wrong;
  • concerns about the accuracy or integrity of the record, which may require formal action.

The editors may ask the person who raised the concern for more information.

4. The Authors’ Right to Reply

When a comment raises a substantive issue about an article, the corresponding author is informed and invited to respond within 30 days. Authors are expected to engage with the concern in good faith and provide explanations or data where requested.

If a Letter to the Editor is accepted for publication, the authors’ response may be published alongside it as a Reply. Both the letter and the reply must meet the journal’s editorial and ethical standards and may be edited for length and clarity. Submitting a letter or a reply does not guarantee that it will be published.

5. Editorial Decisions

After considering the comment and any response from the authors, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to:

  • take no further action, with an explanation to the person who raised the concern;
  • publish the Letter to the Editor and the authors’ Reply, linked to the original article;
  • request revisions to the letter or reply before publication;
  • start formal action under the journal’s correction, retraction or misconduct procedures (Sections 6 and 7).

Both the commenter and the authors will be informed of the decision. Decisions are based on evidence and scholarly merit, independent of any personal, institutional or commercial interest. This includes the fact that the journal is published by Universitas Pelita Harapan.

6. Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions

If a published article is found to contain errors, the journal will respond in proportion to how serious they are:

  • Correction (erratum or corrigendum): for honest errors that affect part of the article but not its overall conclusions.
  • Expression of concern: where serious concerns have been raised but an investigation is still ongoing or the evidence is not yet conclusive.
  • Retraction: where the findings are shown to be unreliable or the article involves serious misconduct.

All notices are published openly and linked to the original article, which remains available with its status clearly marked. These actions exist to correct the scholarly record, not to punish authors for honest mistakes. Authors’ responsibilities when they find errors in their own published work are set out in the journal’s Publication Ethics statement.

7. Concerns About Research Integrity

Comments that suggest possible misconduct are handled confidentially, not as public discussion. They are assessed against the standards in the journal’s Publication Ethics statement and the COPE flowcharts. Possible misconduct includes plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, citation manipulation, or harm to the communities involved. Where appropriate, the journal may contact the authors’ institutions.

8. Fairness and Confidentiality

Throughout the process, the editors treat all parties fairly and keep the details of the assessment confidential. Any editor with a conflict of interest withdraws from handling the case.

References