INTELLECT JOURNAL • EDITORIAL & PUBLICATION ETHICS

Post-Publication Discussion Policy

Scholarly dialogue, author responses, and responsible maintenance of the published record

Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation supports constructive scholarly discussion after publication as an essential part of research transparency, critical evaluation, and the continuing development of knowledge in educational technology and learning innovation.

This policy explains how readers, researchers, authors, and other interested parties may raise questions or provide evidence-based comments about articles published in Intellect. It complements the journal's Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, and Correction and Retraction policies without replacing any of those procedures.

1. Purpose and Scope

Post-publication discussion allows the scholarly community to clarify findings, examine methods, question interpretations, identify limitations, and consider new evidence relating to articles already published in the journal. It may also lead to the identification of errors requiring editorial action.

Discussion may be initiated by readers, researchers, article authors, institutions, or other parties with a legitimate scholarly concern. A critical viewpoint alone is not evidence of research misconduct, and disagreement between researchers does not automatically justify correction or retraction.

2. Forms of Post-Publication Communication

Formal scholarly correspondence arising from a published paper is considered separately from the standard research manuscript types listed in the journal's Manuscript Types policy. A new standalone research article resulting from the discussion must follow the journal's regular submission and peer-review procedures.

3. How to Submit a Post-Publication Comment

Comments and concerns should be sent to the Editorial Office using the official journal contact information. To facilitate a fair and efficient assessment, correspondents are encouraged to provide:

1. Article identification: Full title, author(s), publication year, DOI (if assigned), or a direct URL to the published article.
2. Nature of the concern: A concise description of the question, critique, discrepancy, or suggested clarification.
3. Supporting information: Relevant evidence, references, calculations, or links sufficient for the editors to understand and assess the issue.
4. Correspondent information: Name, affiliation where applicable, and a valid contact address for confidential editorial communication.
5. Competing interests: Any financial, professional, personal, or other interests relevant to the discussion.

Evidence-based integrity concerns may also be submitted confidentially. The Editorial Office may consider anonymous reports when sufficient verifiable evidence is provided, although limited contact details can restrict opportunities for clarification. Do not send identifiable student, participant, or other confidential research data unless the journal has arranged an appropriate secure method of receiving them.

4. Initial Editorial Assessment

On receiving a comment, the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately appointed handling editor will assess whether it concerns an article published in Intellect, is supported by sufficient information, and raises a substantive scholarly or ethical issue. The editor may request clarification or further evidence before deciding how to proceed.

Discussion is evaluated according to its scientific relevance, accuracy, evidential basis, and contribution to the scholarly record. Comments consisting solely of personal attacks, discriminatory language, promotional material, or unsupported accusations will not be treated as publishable scholarly discussion. Substantive concerns must not be dismissed merely because they question an article's conclusions or are inconvenient to the journal.

Editors with a relevant conflict of interest must not manage the assessment. In such cases, responsibility will be transferred to an editor or suitably qualified person who can act independently, consistent with the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.

5. Author Response and Independent Expert Advice

Where appropriate, the editors will share the substance of a scholarly critique with the authors of the published article and invite them to provide a reasoned response and supporting evidence. The journal will allow a reasonable opportunity to respond according to the nature and complexity of the issue.

For technically complex or contested matters, the editors may seek confidential advice from independent specialists. Such consultation is intended to assist editorial judgment and does not replace the journal's standard peer-review procedure for new research articles. Any expert consulted must comply with confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, and applicable AI-use requirements.

An author's decision not to respond does not automatically invalidate the critique or prevent further editorial consideration. The journal may proceed on the available evidence and will distinguish an unanswered question from a confirmed error or finding of misconduct.

6. Editorial Outcomes and the Published Record

Following assessment, the Editorial Office may take one or more of the following actions, depending on the evidence and the significance of the issue:

• Provide an editorial clarification or facilitate a private scholarly exchange when the issue can be resolved without changing the published record.
• Publish or link a substantive scholarly comment and, where available, an author response, subject to editorial assessment and the journal's available publication mechanisms.
• Request supporting information or independent assessment when the evidence remains incomplete or technical questions require additional expertise.
• Issue a formal correction, expression of concern, or retraction where justified by the evidence and the relevant editorial ethics procedures.
• Close the matter without a publication notice when the concern is unsupported or does not warrant public action, while maintaining an appropriate editorial record.

When a public notice or formal scholarly exchange is published, it should identify the relevant original article and, where technically supported, provide clear cross-links to preserve the context of the discussion. Significant amendments to the scholarly record are handled under the separate Correction and Retraction Policy, not as informal, unrecorded changes to published content.

7. Research Integrity, Confidentiality, and Respectful Dialogue

All parties are expected to communicate professionally and support their claims with verifiable evidence. The journal will distinguish good-faith scientific disagreement from allegations requiring a formal integrity investigation. Editors will seek to protect the confidentiality of unpublished correspondence, personal data, and sensitive evidence to the extent appropriate and legally possible.

Public discussion must not disclose confidential reviewer identities, private editorial correspondence, or identifiable research participant information without an appropriate legal and ethical basis. The journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy also applies to editorial handling of confidential materials.

The publisher, Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), supports independent editorial decision-making. Discussion outcomes are determined by scholarly merit and available evidence, not by publication charges, personal relationships, institutional status, or requests for preferential treatment. No paid fast-track service is offered.

8. Disagreement with an Editorial Outcome

A person who believes that a substantial concern has not been handled appropriately may request reconsideration through the Editorial Office, explaining the basis of the request and providing any additional evidence. Wherever feasible, the reconsideration will be conducted by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant conflict of interest.

Where a complaint relates to the Editor-in-Chief or the handling of an ethical concern, it may be referred to the publisher or another independent responsible person under the journal's Complaints and Appeals procedures. Reconsideration does not guarantee publication of a critique or a particular editorial outcome.

9. Policy Implementation and Related Information

This policy applies to comments and concerns received after an article has been published. Editorial correspondence and relevant decisions are documented through the journal's designated record-keeping procedures. The policy should be read together with the journal's wider editorial and publication ethics framework.

Policy and reference sources: COPE — Handling Post-Publication Critiques  ·  COPE–DOAJ Transparency Principles  ·  Scopus — Content Policy and Selection

Publisher: Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation)
Journal: Intellect: Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation