Post-Publication Discussion Policy
Post-Publication Discussion Policy
Promoting constructive scientific dialogue, transparency, accountability, and the continued evaluation of published research in the Journal of Health and Nutrition Research (JHNR).
Purpose and Scope
The Journal of Health and Nutrition Research (JHNR) recognizes that scholarly evaluation continues after an article has been published. Constructive post-publication discussion provides opportunities to clarify findings, identify limitations, address concerns, and support the reliability of the scientific literature.
This policy describes how readers, researchers, authors, and other interested parties may submit scholarly comments, questions, or concerns regarding articles published in JHNR.
The policy complements the journal's existing Editorial Policy, Complaints and Appeals Policy, Crossmark Policy, and applicable publication ethics procedures.
Last Updated: 9 October 2026
Effective Date: 9 October 2026
Principles of Post-Publication Discussion
Scientific Integrity: Discussion should promote accurate interpretation and reliable reporting of research findings.
Constructive Dialogue: Comments should be evidence-based, respectful, and scientifically relevant.
Transparency: Substantive corrections and formal publication updates should be clearly identified and documented.
Fairness: Authors and other affected parties should have a reasonable opportunity to respond to significant concerns.
Editorial Independence: The editorial team determines appropriate action based on the merits of the concern and applicable journal policies.
1. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion
JHNR welcomes scientifically relevant questions, clarifications, and constructive comments concerning research published in the journal.
Relevant discussion may address:
- Research design and methodology.
- Statistical analysis and interpretation of findings.
- Reporting accuracy and completeness.
- Study limitations and generalizability of findings.
- Consistency between research results and conclusions.
- Questions concerning references, research data, tables, or figures.
- Ethical concerns or potential research integrity issues.
- New evidence that may help clarify published findings.
Scientific disagreement alone does not necessarily indicate an error, misconduct, or a reason to retract a published article.
2. Who May Submit a Discussion or Comment?
Post-publication comments and concerns may be submitted by:
- Researchers and academics.
- Readers of published articles.
- Authors of the relevant publication.
- Peer reviewers and editors.
- Research institutions and professional organizations.
- Other parties presenting relevant and verifiable scientific information.
Submissions will be evaluated according to their scientific relevance and supporting evidence, rather than the professional status of the person submitting the comment.
3. How to Submit a Post-Publication Comment
JHNR receives post-publication comments, clarification requests, and relevant concerns through the editorial office.
A submission should preferably include:
- The full title of the published article.
- The article DOI or permanent URL.
- The name and contact information of the person submitting the comment.
- A clear explanation of the scientific question, comment, or concern.
- Identification of relevant sections, tables, figures, or research findings.
- Supporting references or evidence, where applicable.
Post-Publication Discussion Contact
Journal: Journal of Health and Nutrition Research (JHNR)
Publisher: CV Media Publikasi Cendekia Indonesia (MPCI)
Email: editormpci@gmail.com
Suggested Email Subject: Post-Publication Discussion - Article DOI
Submission Channel: Editorial correspondence by email.
Important: JHNR does not require readers to use a public article-commenting platform to submit post-publication concerns. The editorial correspondence mechanism described here provides a channel for submitting scientific comments for editorial consideration.
4. Editorial Assessment of Comments
Comments received by the journal will be considered by the editorial team according to their relevance, clarity, supporting evidence, and implications for the published scientific record.
Editorial assessment may involve:
- Checking whether the comment relates to an article published in JHNR.
- Reviewing the scientific question or concern raised.
- Examining relevant material in the published article.
- Requesting further clarification or supporting evidence.
- Consulting the article authors or an independent expert where appropriate.
- Determining whether formal editorial action is necessary.
Submission of a comment does not automatically guarantee that it will be published or that a formal correction will be issued.
5. Author Responses and Clarifications
When a submitted comment raises a substantive question concerning a published article, the editorial team may invite the corresponding author or other relevant authors to provide clarification.
Authors should respond professionally, provide accurate information, and address the scientific issues raised in the comment.
Where appropriate, additional information or supporting documents may be requested.
The editorial team will consider the available explanations and evidence before determining whether further action is required.
6. Standards for Constructive Discussion
Post-publication comments should support respectful, evidence-based scientific dialogue.
Comments should:
- Focus on scientific content rather than personal characteristics.
- Use professional and respectful language.
- Distinguish evidence from opinion.
- Identify specific scientific concerns clearly.
- Avoid defamatory, discriminatory, threatening, or abusive statements.
- Respect confidential and personal information.
The journal may decline to process comments that are abusive, irrelevant, repetitive without new evidence, or otherwise inconsistent with the purpose of scholarly discussion.
7. Possible Outcomes of Post-Publication Discussion
Depending on the nature and significance of the concern, the editorial team may determine that one or more of the following actions are appropriate.
7.1 No Formal Action
No formal publication update is required when the discussion does not identify a substantive error or integrity concern.
7.2 Author Clarification
The authors may be asked to provide clarification or additional explanation through editorial correspondence.
7.3 Published Commentary or Response
Where appropriate and supported by the journal's editorial arrangements, a scholarly comment and corresponding author response may be considered for formal publication. Publication is not automatic and remains subject to editorial assessment.
7.4 Correction
A formal correction may be issued when an identified error affects the article or its interpretation, without making the entire work unreliable.
7.5 Expression of Concern
An expression of concern may be considered when significant unresolved issues require readers to be informed while further assessment continues.
7.6 Retraction
Retraction may be considered when evidence demonstrates that the published findings are unreliable or that serious research or publication integrity concerns materially affect the article.
8. Corrections, Retractions, and Crossmark
When post-publication discussion identifies an issue requiring formal correction or retraction, JHNR will apply its existing Editorial Policy and Crossmark Policy.
Substantive post-publication changes will be explained through an appropriate dated notice linked to the affected article.
The journal seeks to maintain an accurate and accessible scholarly record. Published material will not be silently altered to conceal substantive corrections or retractions.
Readers are encouraged to consult the article record and available Crossmark information when checking for formal publication updates.
9. Research Misconduct and Ethical Concerns
Concerns involving suspected fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, ethical violations, or other research and publication misconduct will be assessed under JHNR's applicable publication ethics and misconduct procedures.
Such allegations will be considered confidentially, without presuming misconduct has occurred.
Individuals concerned will normally have an opportunity to respond, and the journal may seek information from relevant institutions or other competent bodies where appropriate.
JHNR may consult applicable guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
10. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Post-publication comments and concerns must be assessed independently and fairly.
Editors with relevant conflicts of interest should not manage the affected matter. Where necessary, another qualified editor may be assigned.
Editorial consideration will focus on the scientific merits of the concern and the integrity of the published record.
11. Confidentiality and Public Disclosure
Editorial correspondence regarding post-publication concerns will be handled with appropriate confidentiality.
Private correspondence, personal information, and unpublished documents will not automatically be made public.
Formal corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions will be communicated through appropriate publication notices when warranted.
JHNR may publish relevant scholarly exchanges when editorially appropriate, subject to applicable ethical and confidentiality considerations.
12. Policy Implementation and Review
This policy provides a dedicated mechanism for scholarly discussion and clarification concerning articles already published by JHNR.
It does not replace the journal's existing procedures for complaints, appeals, research misconduct, corrections, or retractions.
The editorial team may review and update this policy to maintain consistency with journal practices and recognized publication ethics guidance.
Related JHNR Policies and Resources
This policy should be read together with the existing JHNR editorial and publication ethics policies.
Policy Statement
JHNR supports responsible post-publication scientific dialogue as part of its commitment to transparency, research integrity, and the continuous evaluation of published scientific evidence. Constructive questions and concerns may be submitted through the editorial office for appropriate consideration.
Published by CV Media Publikasi Cendekia Indonesia (MPCI)
Last Updated: 9 October 2026
