Post-publication Discussion

JOSEIT considers scholarly discussion of published work to be part of the scientific process. Readers are welcome to raise questions, offer alternative interpretations, or flag concerns about any article after publication. This policy follows COPE's guidance on handling post-publication critiques.

 

Ways to Raise a Discussion

Letter to the Editor
A short, focused submission addressing the interpretation, methodology, or results of a specific published article.
Commentary
A longer scholarly discussion of a published article's broader implications, submitted by readers or invited by the editorial board.
Direct Contact
For concerns about research integrity rather than scholarly debate, contact the editorial office directly (see the Allegation of Research Misconduct page).
 

Submission Criteria

Letters and commentaries submitted to JOSEIT must be:

Reasonable in tone and scholarly in nature
Supported by evidence or data — not merely an opinion or personal criticism
Free of libellous, defamatory, or unsubstantiated claims about the original authors
Directly relevant to the content of a specific JOSEIT article

All submissions undergo editorial review before publication. JOSEIT reserves the right to edit for length and clarity, or decline submissions that do not meet these criteria.

 

Author's Right of Reply

When a Letter to the Editor or Commentary concerns a specific published article, the original author(s) will be notified and given the opportunity to submit a Reply. Wherever possible, the Letter/Commentary and the Reply are published together, or in the same issue, so readers see both perspectives side by side.

 

When Discussion Leads to a Correction

If a post-publication discussion identifies a substantive error, the article may be corrected, an Expression of Concern may be issued, or — in serious cases — the article may be retracted, following the same process described on the Publication Ethics and Allegation of Research Misconduct pages. The role of the editorial office in this process is to facilitate a fair, evidence-based discussion — not to adjudicate personal disputes between researchers.