Post-Publication Discussion Policy

Scholarly discussion and scientific exchange do not end upon publication. Jurnal Rekayasa Industri (JRI) encourages open, transparent, and constructive post-publication debate, questions, and scholarly critiques concerning its published engineering articles.

1. Channels for Discussion

Channel Description
Formal Comments to the Editor Substantive comments, methodological critiques, or analytical inquiries regarding published articles may be submitted directly to the JRI Editorial Office.
PubPeer Platform Readers and researchers may comment publicly on any JRI article using its assigned Digital Object Identifier (DOI) on PubPeer.com. The JRI Editorial Board actively monitors comments regarding its published literature.
Direct Author Inquiries Specific questions regarding data availability, industrial case details, optimization code, or experimental setups may be addressed directly to the Corresponding Author listed in the paper.
Ethical Misconduct Reporting Allegations regarding research misconduct, data fabrication, or ethics violations follow a separate, confidential procedure outlined in JRI's Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy.

2. Submitting a Formal Comment

Formal critiques or comments should be submitted via email to jriuwm@gmail.com and must include:
  1. The full title, volume, issue, and DOI of the article concerned.
  2. The detailed scholarly comment or critique, focusing strictly on technical content (e.g., engineering methodology, experimental design, mathematical modeling, simulation accuracy, or data interpretation), supported by scientific evidence and literature citations.
  3. The commenter’s full name, institutional affiliation, contact details, and a formal Conflict of Interest declaration.
Content Standard: Comments must maintain a respectful, professional, and constructive tone. Personal attacks, defamatory statements, commercial self-promotion, or comments unrelated to the paper's scientific merit will be rejected without further consideration.

3. Review and Resolution Process

  1. Editorial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief or a designated section editor evaluates whether the comment raises a substantive, scientifically valid issue.
  2. Author Response Opportunity: If deemed substantive, the comment is forwarded to the corresponding author of the original paper, who is invited to submit a formal written Reply.
  3. Editorial Outcome:
    • Publication of Comment & Reply: In accordance with ICMJE and COPE recommendations, substantive comments that advance academic discourse may be published as a formal Comment linked to the original article, accompanied by the authors' Reply. Comments are evaluated by the Editorial Board and, if necessary, an independent peer reviewer.
    • Declined Reply: If the original authors decline to reply, the Comment may still be published with an editorial note indicating that the authors chose not to respond.
    • Corrections or Retractions: If the post-publication discussion uncovers a significant technical error or calculation flaw, JRI will publish a formal Corrigendum/Correction. If the discussion reveals critical issues compromising the overall reliability or validity of the findings, JRI will initiate procedures in accordance with its Correction and Retraction Policy.

4. Guiding Principles

  • Right to Reply: Authors always retain the right to defend and respond constructively to criticism of their published work.
  • Confidentiality & Anonymity: Commenter details may be kept confidential upon explicit request; however, anonymous comments must be backed by verifiable, objective scientific evidence.
  • Recusal for Conflicts: Any editor holding a potential conflict of interest regarding the original work, the authors, or the commenter will be recused from handling the post-publication evaluation.