Post-Publication Discussion

Post-Publication Policy

Post-Publication Discussion

Jurnal Agroekoteknologi Tropika Lembab encourages responsible, evidence-based discussion of published articles as part of the continuing process of scientific evaluation and correction.

Readers, authors, and researchers may submit questions, scholarly criticism, alternative interpretations, replication findings, or new evidence concerning articles published in Jurnal Agroekoteknologi Tropika Lembab (JATL), internationally titled Humid Tropical Agroecotechnology Journal. Substantive comments will be considered through a fair and transparent editorial process.

Core Principle

Scientific Criticism Is Part of Scholarly Communication

Responsible disagreement, replication, correction, and debate help strengthen scientific knowledge. Discussion must address the scholarly content of an article rather than attack its authors and must be expressed accurately, respectfully, and with appropriate evidence.

Forms of Post-Publication Discussion

Scholarly Comment

A focused comment discussing the methods, analysis, interpretation, or implications of a published article.

Letter to the Editor

A concise, evidence-based correspondence concerning one or more articles published by the journal.

Author Response

A response from the author of the discussed article addressing a substantial question, comment, or criticism.

Replication Evidence

Relevant findings from an attempted replication or reanalysis that may confirm, qualify, or question published results.

Request for Clarification

A specific question concerning unclear methods, data, terminology, figures, tables, or interpretations.

Integrity Concern

Evidence suggesting a significant error, undisclosed interest, plagiarism, data problem, or other research-integrity issue.

Requirements for a Scholarly Discussion

A submission for post-publication discussion should:

  • clearly identify the article being discussed, including its title, author, publication year, and DOI or URL;
  • address a specific scholarly, methodological, factual, interpretive, or ethical matter;
  • present a clear argument supported by relevant evidence and references;
  • distinguish established facts from interpretations or opinions;
  • use respectful, professional, and non-discriminatory language;
  • disclose relevant financial and non-financial competing interests;
  • disclose substantive use of artificial intelligence in preparing the submission; and
  • contain original material that does not infringe copyright, privacy, confidentiality, or other legal rights.

Content That Will Not Be Considered

JATL may decline or discontinue a discussion containing:

Personal attacks Defamatory allegations Discriminatory language Unsupported accusations Commercial promotion Repeated or duplicate comments Irrelevant material Private or confidential data Fabricated evidence Harassment

JATL will not use its post-publication discussion process to adjudicate purely personal, employment, commercial, political, or institutional disputes that do not materially affect the published scholarly record.

How to Submit a Comment or Concern

Correspondence should be sent to the editorial office with the subject line “Post-Publication Discussion”. The submission should include:

  1. the full identification of the article;
  2. the comment, question, criticism, or concern;
  3. supporting references, data, or documentary evidence;
  4. the contributor's full name, affiliation, and contact information;
  5. a conflict-of-interest declaration; and
  6. any request for the contributor's identity to remain confidential.
Submission Address

Subject: Post-Publication Discussion

Email: jurnalagroteknologi@faperta.unmul.ac.id

Anonymous and Confidential Reports

JATL generally requests the reporter's identity and contact information so that evidence can be verified and clarification requested. A person may ask the journal not to disclose their identity publicly or to the author. The journal will seek to respect such a request when reasonably possible but cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality when disclosure is required by law, due process, or an effective investigation.

An anonymous report may still be assessed when it provides specific, credible, and independently verifiable evidence. Anonymous or confidential allegations will not ordinarily be published as scholarly correspondence under an unidentified name.

Editorial Process

1
Initial Screening

The editor checks relevance, clarity, evidence, tone, originality, competing interests, and compliance with this policy.

2
Editorial Classification

The editor determines whether the submission is a scholarly comment, clarification request, correction request, or research-integrity concern.

3
Author Notification and Response

Authors of the discussed article will ordinarily receive the substantive comment and be invited to provide a response within a reasonable period.

4
Expert Assessment

When necessary, the editor may seek independent peer review, statistical advice, methodological assessment, or clarification from an institution or other qualified party.

5
Editorial Decision

The editor decides whether to publish, request revision, seek further evidence, refer the matter to another policy, or decline the submission.

6
Publication and Linking

An accepted discussion and author response may be published and linked to the original article. Relevant article and DOI metadata may also be updated when appropriate.

Author's Right to Respond

Authors have the right and scholarly responsibility to respond to substantial criticism of their published work. The editor will seek to provide the authors with the substantive points and a fair opportunity to respond.

Failure or refusal to respond will not automatically prevent publication of a well-supported comment or stop the journal from investigating a significant concern. Any published notice may state that an author response was invited but not received.

Publication of Correspondence

Accepted correspondence may be edited for clarity, length, grammar, legal risk, and journal style. Substantive editorial changes will be discussed with the contributor before publication. Depending on its content, correspondence may undergo independent peer review.

JATL may publish the comment and response together or separately. A published contribution will identify its author, affiliation, publication date, and competing-interest statement and will be linked to the article being discussed.

Escalation of Significant Concerns

Clarification Needed
The editor may request an author response or publish an editorial clarification.
Error Identified
The matter will be handled under the Corrections and Retractions Policy .
Misconduct Suspected
The matter will be handled under the Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy .
Competing Interest
The matter will be handled under the Conflict of Interest Policy .

Time Considerations

Scholarly comments should be submitted promptly so that discussion remains timely and useful. However, there is no fixed time limit for reporting significant errors, unreliable findings, ethical concerns, plagiarism, or other matters that could affect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor has final responsibility for determining whether correspondence is relevant, sufficiently supported, suitable for publication, or more appropriately handled through another journal policy. Decisions will not be based solely on whether the comment supports or criticizes the original article.