Post-Publication Discussion Policy

UltimaComm : Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi

1. Policy Statement

UltimaComm: Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi recognizes that scholarly communication continues after publication. Published research remains open to critical examination, methodological scrutiny, reinterpretation, replication, and evidence-based disagreement.
Post-publication discussion enables the scholarly community to identify limitations, clarify interpretations, correct errors, and advance academic debate. UltimaComm welcomes constructive and substantiated engagement with published work while maintaining standards of accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and professional conduct.
The journal distinguishes legitimate scholarly disagreement from allegations of research or publication misconduct. Disagreement with an article's theoretical position, methodology, interpretation, or conclusions does not, by itself, establish misconduct or justify retraction.

2. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion may address:
a. Theoretical, conceptual, or methodological limitations of a published article.
b. Alternative interpretations of research findings or arguments.
c. The accuracy, traceability, or interpretation of cited sources.
d. Questions concerning research design, data analysis, or the presentation of evidence.
e. The relevance of an article's conclusions to communication scholarship and practice.
f. Potential errors, omissions, or inconsistencies that may require correction.
g. Substantiated concerns regarding research integrity, ethical compliance, or publication misconduct.
Discussion must be relevant to the scholarly content of the publication and supported by appropriate reasoning or evidence.

3. Submitting a Post-Publication Comment

Readers and researchers who wish to raise a scholarly comment or concern may contact the journal through its official editorial contact channels.
A submission should:
a. Identify the published article, including its title, authors, publication details, and DOI where available.
b. State the specific argument, finding, methodological issue, or concern being addressed.
c. Provide a clear and evidence-based explanation of the issue.
d. Cite relevant literature or supporting documentation where appropriate.
e. Identify any competing interests that may be relevant to the submission.
Submissions should be concise, professionally written, and directed toward scholarly issues rather than personal criticism.
The journal may request clarification, supporting evidence, or revisions before considering a comment for publication.

4. Editorial Assessment

The editor-in-chief or an appropriately authorized editor will assess whether a proposed comment is relevant, sufficiently substantiated, professionally appropriate, and suitable for publication or another editorial response.
The journal may decline a comment that:
a. Falls outside the journal's scholarly scope.
b. Lacks a substantive argument or evidentiary basis.
c. Merely repeats an existing discussion without adding scholarly value.
d. Contains defamatory, discriminatory, threatening, or irrelevant personal remarks.
e. Breaches confidentiality, privacy, copyright, or applicable legal requirements.
f. Is primarily intended to harass, intimidate, or unfairly damage an individual or organization.
Where necessary, the editor may seek independent expert advice. A comment that raises a credible allegation of research misconduct may be handled under the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement rather than treated solely as a scholarly disagreement.
The journal will not reject a well-substantiated criticism merely because it challenges the conclusions of an article published in UltimaComm or questions the work of an editor, reviewer, or affiliated institution.

5. Opportunity for Author Response

When a comment directly challenges the arguments, methods, or findings of a published article, the journal may invite the original author or authors to respond.
An author response should address the substantive issues raised and provide supporting reasoning or evidence. The original author is not required to agree with the commentator but is expected to engage with the criticism professionally.
The journal may publish the comment and response together or in another appropriate format, subject to editorial assessment and available publication arrangements.
The opportunity to respond does not confer a right to publication. Both the comment and the response are subject to editorial evaluation.

6. Editorial Outcomes

Following assessment, the journal may:
a. Decline the comment with an appropriate explanation.
b. Request revision before further consideration.
c. Publish a scholarly comment or correspondence.
d. Invite a response from the original author.
e. Publish a correction when a factual or reporting error is established.
f. Initiate an investigation when credible concerns about research or publication integrity arise.
g. Publish an expression of concern or retraction notice when justified by the evidence.
Editorial action will be proportionate to the nature and significance of the issue. A scholarly disagreement will not automatically lead to a correction or retraction.

7. Research Integrity and Confidentiality

All parties must respect the confidentiality of unpublished information, research participants, and sensitive data.
Individuals raising concerns should provide information in good faith and avoid unsupported accusations. The journal will assess allegations on the evidence available and will not treat an allegation as proof of misconduct.
The journal will handle submissions and associated correspondence confidentially to the extent reasonably possible, subject to the requirements of a fair investigation and applicable legal or institutional obligations.
The journal does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise substantiated concerns in good faith.

8. Independence and Transparency

Editorial decisions concerning post-publication discussion must be based on scholarly relevance, evidentiary quality, ethical considerations, and the integrity of the scholarly record.
The professional standing, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships of the parties must not determine the outcome.
Where a comment or response is published, the journal will provide appropriate bibliographic information and links to the related article or discussion, where technically feasible.

9. Relationship to Corrections and Retractions

Post-publication discussion and formal correction procedures serve related but distinct purposes.
A scholarly comment may challenge an interpretation without demonstrating that the article is erroneous. A correction is appropriate when a material error or omission requires rectification. An expression of concern or retraction may be warranted when substantive concerns affect the reliability or ethical integrity of the published work.
Concerns that may affect the integrity of the scholarly record will be assessed in accordance with the journal's Correction and Retraction Policy.

10. Policy Review

UltimaComm will review this policy periodically to ensure that its procedures remain appropriate for responsible scholarly communication and post-publication accountability.
Guiding principle: Published scholarship should remain open to rigorous, fair, and evidence-based scrutiny. UltimaComm regards constructive criticism as an essential component of academic integrity and the continuing development of communication scholarship.