Post-Publication Discussion

 

1. Policy Statement

Civil Engineering Scientific Journal (CESJ) recognizes scholarly publishing as an ongoing process of scientific communication, critical evaluation, and knowledge development. The publication of an article does not conclude the academic discussion surrounding its findings, methodology, interpretation, or contribution to the field of civil engineering.

The journal welcomes constructive, evidence-based post-publication discussions concerning articles published in CESJ. Such discussions aim to promote scientific transparency, encourage academic debate, improve the reliability of published research, and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

This policy is guided by the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly its guidance on post-publication discussions and corrections, as well as applicable publication ethics principles.

2. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussions may address, but are not limited to, the following matters:

  1. Clarification of scientific arguments, research findings, or conclusions presented in a published article.

  2. Critical evaluation of research methods, experimental procedures, analytical techniques, numerical simulations, or statistical approaches.

  3. Alternative interpretations of research results or theoretical explanations.

  4. Identification of methodological limitations, inconsistencies, errors, or omissions that may affect the interpretation of published findings.

  5. Suggestions for further research, validation, or improvement of the reported work.

  6. Concerns regarding research integrity, publication ethics, data reliability, authorship, plagiarism, or undisclosed competing interests.

All contributions must be relevant to the published research and provide a clear scientific or ethical basis for the issues raised.

3. Submission Procedure

Readers, researchers, and other members of the academic community who wish to comment on a published article may submit their contributions through the journal's official Open Journal Systems (OJS) submission platform or by contacting the editorial office at borneo.cesj@gmail.com.

Official journal website: https://jurnal.borneo.ac.id/index.php/CESJ/index

A post-publication discussion submission should include:

  • The title, author(s), publication year, and DOI or URL of the article being discussed.

  • The title of the proposed discussion or commentary.

  • A clear description of the scientific issue, criticism, clarification, or concern.

  • Supporting evidence, relevant references, calculations, or other appropriate documentation.

  • The name and institutional affiliation of the contributor, together with contact information.

  • A declaration of any relevant competing interests.

Submissions should be concise, respectful, evidence-based, and written in clear academic English. Contributors must not include personal attacks, defamatory statements, confidential information, or allegations unsupported by relevant evidence.

4. Editorial Assessment and Review

All post-publication discussion submissions are subject to an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized member of the editorial team.

The editorial assessment considers the scientific relevance, originality, accuracy, clarity, supporting evidence, ethical implications, and potential contribution of the submission to the scholarly record.

Depending on the nature and complexity of the submission, the journal may:

  1. Accept the contribution for publication after editorial assessment.

  2. Request revisions or additional supporting evidence.

  3. Invite independent expert review when specialized scientific or technical evaluation is necessary.

  4. Invite the original author(s) to provide a response or clarification.

  5. Decline the submission if it lacks sufficient scientific merit, falls outside the journal's scope, duplicates existing discussion without meaningful contribution, or fails to meet ethical and editorial requirements.

  6. Initiate a separate investigation when the submission raises credible concerns regarding research integrity or publication ethics.

The journal will apply its editorial procedures consistently and fairly. The decision to publish a discussion will be based on its scholarly merit and relevance rather than the institutional affiliation, reputation, or personal characteristics of the individuals involved.

5. Right of Reply

When appropriate, the author(s) of the original article will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive criticism or questions concerning their published work.

The response should address the issues raised in a professional, evidence-based manner and may include additional explanations, supporting data, methodological clarification, or acknowledgment of limitations.

Where both the discussion and the author's response are considered suitable for publication, the journal may publish them together or link them to the original article to facilitate balanced academic dialogue.

The publication of a discussion does not automatically imply that the original article is incorrect or that the journal endorses the opinions expressed by the contributor. Similarly, the absence of an author's response does not, by itself, establish the validity of the criticism.

6. Publication and Accessibility

Accepted post-publication discussions may be published as Letters to the Editor, Commentaries, Correspondence, or another appropriate scholarly contribution, depending on the journal's editorial procedures.

Where practicable, published discussions and corresponding author responses will be linked to the original article through the journal website. This approach supports discoverability, transparency, and continued scholarly engagement.

All published contributions must comply with the journal's applicable editorial, copyright, licensing, and publication ethics policies.

7. Handling Research Integrity Concerns

Post-publication discussions that raise credible concerns regarding possible research misconduct or publication ethics violations will be handled carefully, objectively, and confidentially to the extent appropriate.

The editorial team may request additional information, examine relevant documentation, seek independent expert advice, and contact the authors or their affiliated institutions when necessary.

Concerns may include, but are not limited to, data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, undisclosed competing interests, or substantial errors that undermine the reliability of the published findings.

The journal will assess concerns on the basis of available evidence and established editorial procedures. Allegations will not be treated as proven misconduct solely because they have been submitted.

Where appropriate, the journal will follow COPE guidance and its relevant publication ethics procedures to determine the appropriate action.

8. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

If a post-publication discussion or subsequent investigation identifies a problem with a published article, the journal will determine the appropriate action based on the nature, seriousness, and evidential basis of the issue.

Possible actions include:

  • Correction: Issued when a published article contains an error or omission that requires correction while the overall reliability of the work remains intact.

  • Expression of Concern: Issued when there are substantial unresolved concerns about the reliability or integrity of an article, including circumstances in which an investigation is ongoing or the available evidence remains inconclusive.

  • Retraction: Considered when there is clear evidence that the findings or conclusions are unreliable or when other grounds consistent with applicable publication ethics guidance justify retraction.

Editorial decisions will follow the relevant COPE guidance and the journal's publication ethics policies. Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices will clearly identify the affected article and explain the basis for the editorial action, as appropriate.

The purpose of these actions is to maintain the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record rather than to punish authors.

9. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Editorial Independence

Civil Engineering Scientific Journal (CESJ) is committed to handling post-publication discussions fairly, objectively, and without undue delay.

The journal will protect confidential information where appropriate, provide relevant parties with a fair opportunity to respond, and manage competing interests that could affect editorial decisions.

Editors and reviewers involved in assessing a discussion must disclose relevant competing interests and, where necessary, withdraw from the assessment to ensure an impartial process.

Editorial decisions will be based on scholarly merit, supporting evidence, research integrity, and applicable publication ethics standards.

10. Contact and Further Information

Questions, comments, and submissions concerning post-publication discussions may be directed to the editorial office:

Civil Engineering Scientific Journal (CESJ)
Email: borneo.cesj@gmail.com
Website: https://jurnal.borneo.ac.id/index.php/CESJ/index

Contributors are encouraged to identify the published article clearly and provide sufficient supporting information to enable an appropriate editorial assessment.

CESJ reserves the right to update this policy to reflect developments in scholarly publishing practices and publication ethics guidance.

Ethical Framework: Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Core Practices, including Post-publication Discussions and Corrections, and relevant COPE guidance on corrections and retractions.