Post-Publication Discussion

Jurnal FisTa: Fisika dan Terapannya encourages constructive scientific discussion and critical evaluation of articles after publication. Post-publication discussion is part of the journal's commitment to scientific transparency, research integrity, and the accuracy of the scholarly record.

Authors, readers, researchers, and other interested parties may submit scientific comments, questions, requests for clarification, or concerns regarding articles published in the journal. Such discussions should be based on relevant scientific arguments, appropriate evidence, and professional academic communication.

1. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion may address scientific or ethical matters concerning published articles, including:

  • The validity, interpretation, and significance of research findings.
  • Research methodology, experimental procedures, theoretical models, computational approaches, and data analysis.
  • The accuracy of data, tables, figures, graphs, equations, and calculations.
  • Scientific comparisons with previous studies and alternative interpretations of research findings.
  • Research limitations, uncertainties, and methodological concerns.
  • Requests for clarification concerning published scientific information.
  • Potential errors, inconsistencies, or concerns related to research and publication integrity.

Comments must be relevant to the published article and should contribute to scientific understanding, clarification, or the identification of issues requiring editorial attention.

2. Submission of Comments and Scientific Concerns

Post-publication comments, questions, and scientific concerns may be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official email address: jurnalfista@unima.ac.id.

To facilitate an appropriate editorial assessment, submissions should include:

  1. The title of the published article.
  2. The author names, publication year, volume, and issue.
  3. The Digital Object Identifier (DOI), where available.
  4. A clear description of the scientific question, comment, or concern.
  5. Identification of the relevant section, table, figure, equation, data, or conclusion being discussed.
  6. Supporting scientific references or evidence, where applicable.
  7. The name and contact information of the person submitting the comment.

Comments should be written professionally and objectively. Personal attacks, discriminatory statements, unsupported accusations, or submissions unrelated to the scientific content of the article are not considered appropriate forms of scholarly discussion.

3. Editorial Assessment

The editorial team will conduct an initial assessment of submitted comments to determine their relevance, scientific basis, and potential implications for the published article.

The assessment may consider whether the submission represents a scientific disagreement, a request for clarification, an identified error, or a concern regarding research integrity.

When necessary, the editorial team may request additional evidence, consult qualified reviewers or subject specialists, or refer the matter to appropriate parties for further consideration.

Editors with potential conflicts of interest concerning the article or the parties involved must not participate in the relevant editorial assessment.

4. Author Response and Scientific Clarification

When a submitted comment raises a substantive scientific question or concern, the editorial team may invite the corresponding author to provide an explanation or response.

Authors may be requested to clarify research methods, explain findings, provide supporting data or calculations, or respond to concerns regarding the interpretation and reliability of published results.

The editorial team will consider the information provided by both the person submitting the comment and the author(s) concerned before determining whether further action is necessary.

Scientific disagreements should be addressed through constructive argumentation and evidence-based discussion.

5. Editorial Decisions and Follow-Up Actions

The outcome of post-publication discussion depends on the nature of the issue and the supporting evidence available. The editorial team may take appropriate actions, including:

  • Providing clarification or an editorial response to the submitted comment.
  • Requesting a scientific explanation or additional information from the author(s).
  • Seeking independent scientific evaluation when necessary.
  • Publishing a clarification or editorial notice when appropriate.
  • Initiating further investigation when there are reasonable indications of research or publication misconduct.
  • Issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction when justified by the findings of an editorial assessment.

Differences in scientific interpretation do not automatically constitute an error or research misconduct. Editorial actions affecting the published record must be supported by appropriate evidence and a fair assessment.

When significant inaccuracies or ethical concerns are identified, the journal will handle the matter in accordance with its established publication ethics and correction and retraction policies.

6. Confidentiality and Transparency

The editorial team will handle post-publication correspondence fairly, professionally, and with appropriate confidentiality, particularly when submissions contain personal information, unpublished research data, or allegations of misconduct.

Relevant correspondence, supporting evidence, editorial assessments, and decisions will be documented as appropriate to maintain accountability and the traceability of editorial actions.

When an editorial action requires a public notice, the journal will provide sufficient information to explain the decision while respecting applicable confidentiality and ethical considerations.

Jurnal FisTa follows relevant principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in addressing post-publication concerns and maintaining the integrity of published scholarly literature.