Post-Publication

Dampak welcomes scholarly discussion of its articles through letters to the editor and commentaries, takes seriously any concern a reader raises about a published article, and refers concerns about errors or misconduct to the journal's policies on corrections, retractions and misconduct.

1. Introduction

Dampak: Jurnal Teknik Lingkungan Universitas Andalas treats a published article as part of an ongoing scientific conversation. Readers may question it, comment on it and build on it. This policy explains how readers can take part in that discussion, and how the journal handles the comments, critiques and concerns it receives.

It follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applies to every article published in Dampak, whatever its age. Changes to a published article, such as corrections and retractions, are covered by the journal's Corrections and Retractions policy, not by this one.

2. Description

Post-publication discussion is any comment, question, critique or alternative interpretation of a published article, from readers, researchers or practitioners. It can reach the journal in three ways:

What you want to do What to use Where it is described
Comment on an article, question its conclusions or offer another reading of the results A letter to the editor or commentary, which the journal may publish Section 4.1
Report an error, or a doubt about the data, methods or originality of an article A report of a concern, which the editors assess Section 4.2
Raise the matter on social media or another website The editors read it and treat a specific concern like any other report Section 4.1, Other channels

3. Policy

  • Open debate. Constructive, respectful discussion of published articles is encouraged through the channels in Section 4.1.
  • Fairness to authors. The authors of the article are told about a critique of their work and are invited to reply.
  • Evidence and focus. Critiques should be reasonable, supported by evidence, data or references, and focused on the substance of the article rather than on its authors, their institution or their funders. They must not be defamatory or abusive.
  • One exchange. For each critique the journal publishes one letter and one reply, so that the discussion does not drag on.
  • Impartiality. The Editor-in-Chief decides after consulting the authors and, as needed, reviewers or board members. The status, affiliation or seniority of the authors or of the person raising the concern makes no difference.
  • Transparency. The journal tells both sides what it intends to do and when. A letter and the authors' reply are published together and linked to the article and to each other.
  • Confidentiality. The identity of a person who reports a concern is protected where appropriate.
  • No charge. The journal does not charge for letters.
  • Conflicts. If a concern is about an article by the Editor-in-Chief, an editor or a board member, it is handled under section 4.4 of the Conflict of Interest policy.

4. Procedures

4.1 Discussion of published articles

Letters to the editor and commentaries. A reader may submit a letter that comments on, questions or offers an alternative reading of an article published in Dampak. The journal asks that letters:

  • are in Indonesian or English, concise (about 1,000 words) and relevant to the article;
  • give the writer's real name, affiliation and email address;
  • focus on the substance of the article, not on its authors, their institution or their funders;
  • support their points with evidence, data or references, and contain nothing defamatory or abusive;
  • cite no more than about 10 references, and do not present new, unpublished research, which belongs in a submitted article;
  • reach the editorial office within 12 months of the article's publication. A letter that raises a concern about the integrity of an article is accepted at any time and handled under Section 4.2.

The editors screen each letter before it goes further. If it is not about the substance of the article, or contains content that may be defamatory, the writer is given the chance to revise it. If the content may be libellous, the editors take advice from the publisher, who may consult its legal office. If a letter gives no support for its claims, the editors ask the writer for the evidence. A letter that is still unsuitable after revision is declined, and the writer is told why. Accepted letters may be edited lightly, and the editors may ask an independent reviewer for advice. The original authors are invited to reply within 30 days. An accepted letter is published with the authors' reply, if there is one, in the next issue. Letter and reply are linked to the article and to each other. For each critique the journal publishes one letter and one reply, and no further exchanges. Authors may decline to reply; the letter is then published with a note saying so. The editor may refuse a letter that is not constructive, repeats a point already made, or is outside the scope of the article.

Other channels. Dampak does not host open comments on article pages. The journal does read discussion of its articles on other sites, including social media and post-publication review sites. If such discussion raises a specific concern, the editors treat it like any other concern raised directly, under Section 4.2.

4.2 Reporting and handling a concern

Anyone may report a concern about a published article, including authors, readers and reviewers, by writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the editorial office; see the Contact page. The message should give the article, the location of the problem and any evidence. Anonymous reports are considered if they include verifiable evidence.

Step What happens Target time
Acknowledge The editorial office confirms receipt to the person who reported. Within 7 days
Assess The editors decide whether the concern is specific, credible and about the published article. If not, the reporter is told why. Within 14 days of receipt
Ask the authors The corresponding author receives the concern and may respond with data or an explanation. The reporter's identity is withheld when appropriate. 14 days to respond
Consult The editors may consult reviewers, board members, the authors' institution or the publisher, and follow the COPE flowcharts that fit the case. As needed
Decide and inform The Editor-in-Chief decides the outcome below. The authors and the reporter are told the decision and the reasons. Within 14 days of the end of the assessment

The Editor-in-Chief decides who handles the matter. If the editor who handled the original article, or its reviewers, would have a conflict of interest in judging a critique of it, someone else handles it.

A concern about the integrity of an article is assessed under this section at once. It does not wait for the decision on whether to publish a related letter, and the letter's publication does not depend on the outcome of the assessment.

The outcome is one of the following:

  • No action, when the concern is not supported or is a difference of interpretation. A reasoned reply is sent to the reporter, who may be invited to submit a letter under Section 4.1.
  • A letter is published with the authors' reply.
  • The article needs to be changed, for example because of an error or unreliable findings. The case is handled under the journal's Corrections and Retractions policy.
  • Misconduct is suspected. The case is handled under the Allegations of Misconduct policy, and plagiarism cases use the levels in the Plagiarism Policy.

The target times can be extended when an institution is investigating or the case is complex; the parties are then told why.

4.3 Responsibilities of authors

When a reader raises a concern, the authors of the article reply fully and on time, and provide raw data, analysis files and clarifications on request. Authors keep their raw data for a reasonable time after publication, as the Publication Ethics statement provides. If the authors do not respond, or obstruct the process, the journal continues without them: a letter is published with a note that no reply was received, and a serious concern is still investigated, with the authors' institution contacted where appropriate.

4.4 Records and review

The editorial office keeps a confidential record of each letter and concern, the evidence, and the decision, for at least five years. The editorial board reviews this policy at least once a year and updates it as COPE guidance changes.

5. COPE resources and related policies