1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Pengembangan Penyuluhan Pertanian (JP3) supports transparent scholarly communication and recognizes the importance of discussion and critical evaluation after an article has been published. The journal provides a mechanism for readers, researchers, and other interested parties to raise substantive concerns, offer alternative interpretations, and discuss the findings of published articles, in accordance with COPE Core Practice 10: Post-publication discussions and corrections.

JP3 will consider post-publication comments and critiques fairly, objectively, and in a timely manner. The purpose of this process is to support scholarly debate, address legitimate concerns, and maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. The journal's procedures are informed by the COPE Flowchart on Handling Post-publication Critiques.

2. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion may concern any article published in JP3 and may include questions about research methods, data interpretation, statistical analysis, reproducibility, conclusions, references, ethical approval, authorship, or other matters that could affect the interpretation or reliability of the published work. JP3 will prioritize comments that address the scholarly content of the article and contribute constructively to scientific discussion, following the principles in the COPE guidance on handling post-publication critiques.

Post-publication discussion is not intended to provide a platform for personal attacks, harassment, irrelevant accusations, or comments directed at an author's personal characteristics rather than the substance of the research. The journal may request revisions or decline comments that do not meet its scholarly and editorial requirements, in line with the COPE Flowchart on Handling Post-publication Critiques.

3. Submission of Comments and Critiques

Readers and researchers who wish to comment on a published JP3 article should contact the editorial office through the contact information available on the journal's official website: Jurnal Pengembangan Penyuluhan Pertanian.

A submission should identify the article concerned, clearly explain the issue being raised, provide supporting evidence or references where appropriate, and state how the comment relates to the article's methods, results, interpretation, or conclusions. JP3 will consider whether the comment provides a substantive contribution to scholarly discussion, consistent with the COPE procedure for evaluating post-publication critiques.

Comments may be subject to editorial assessment and, where appropriate, independent peer review before publication. Submission of a comment does not guarantee publication. The editor will assess its relevance, accuracy, fairness, and contribution to scholarly debate under the journal's editorial procedures.

4. Editorial Assessment

Upon receiving a post-publication critique, the editor will assess whether the comment concerns the scientific or scholarly content of the published article, whether it provides sufficient detail to be evaluated, and whether it meets the journal's standards for professional communication. This approach follows the decision process outlined in the COPE Flowchart on Handling Post-publication Critiques.

If the comment raises a substantive issue that may benefit from clarification by the original authors, the editor may invite the authors to respond. The editor may also facilitate an exchange between the parties where this would help clarify the issue, while maintaining editorial oversight and an appropriate timeline, as recommended in the COPE guidance on post-publication critiques.

The editor may decline a critique that is outside the journal's scope, lacks a reasonable scholarly basis, does not address the substance of the article, or contains potentially defamatory or otherwise inappropriate material that cannot be resolved through revision. Where legal or reputational concerns arise, JP3 may seek advice from its publisher or appropriate legal advisers, consistent with the considerations described in the COPE Flowchart on Handling Post-publication Critiques.

5. Opportunity for Authors to Respond

When a post-publication critique is considered suitable for further consideration, JP3 may invite the authors of the original article to provide a response. The response should address the substantive points raised, provide supporting evidence where appropriate, and maintain a professional and respectful tone. The editor will assess both the critique and the response impartially, following the process outlined in the COPE Flowchart on Handling Post-publication Critiques.

Depending on the nature of the issue, the editor may publish the critique and the authors' response together or separately, or may facilitate further clarification before reaching an editorial decision. Where an exchange is facilitated, the editor may establish an expected timeline and keep the parties informed of significant delays, consistent with the COPE guidance on managing post-publication discussions.

6. Publication of Post-Publication Comments

Accepted comments and responses may be published as correspondence, a letter to the editor, a commentary, or another appropriate format determined by JP3. Published contributions must meet the journal's editorial standards and should provide a meaningful contribution to scholarly discussion. This policy supports the principle that journals should allow debate after publication, as set out in COPE Core Practice 10: Post-publication discussions and corrections.

Where technically feasible, JP3 will link published comments and responses to the original article so that readers can locate the discussion and understand the context of the concerns raised. The journal will aim to present post-publication exchanges transparently and in a manner that preserves the scholarly record, consistent with COPE's guidance on post-publication discussions and corrections.

7. Allegations of Errors or Research Misconduct

If a post-publication comment raises credible concerns about errors, data reliability, plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, or other possible research misconduct, JP3 will assess the matter under its relevant publication-ethics procedures. The journal will distinguish scholarly disagreement from concerns that may require formal investigation. This approach is informed by COPE Core Practice 1: Allegations of misconduct.

Where appropriate, JP3 may contact the authors for clarification or refer the matter to the relevant institution or research-integrity authority. The journal may take editorial action while an investigation is pending if necessary to alert readers to a significant unresolved concern. Such action will depend on the evidence and circumstances of the case and may follow the relevant COPE Core Practices.

8. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

If a post-publication discussion identifies a material error in an otherwise reliable article, JP3 may publish a correction. If significant concerns remain unresolved and readers need to be alerted while further clarification or investigation is pending, the journal may consider an expression of concern. If the evidence establishes that an article's findings are unreliable or that other grounds for retraction apply, JP3 may retract the article. These decisions will be made in accordance with the criteria described in the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice should clearly identify the affected article and explain the reason for the editorial action to the extent supported by the available evidence. Where possible, the notice will be linked to the original article to ensure that readers can access the relevant information, following the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

A disagreement between researchers or a critical comment alone will not automatically result in a correction or retraction. JP3 will determine the appropriate response based on the nature of the issue, the evidence available, and whether the reliability or integrity of the published article is affected, in line with the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

9. Confidentiality, Fairness, and Professional Conduct

JP3 will handle post-publication discussions fairly and professionally. The journal will focus on the scholarly merits of the issues raised and provide relevant parties with an appropriate opportunity to respond where necessary. The editorial process will aim to protect the integrity of scholarly discussion while avoiding unnecessary personal disputes, in accordance with the COPE guidance on handling post-publication critiques.

Information relating to an ongoing assessment or investigation will be shared only as appropriate for the handling of the matter, subject to applicable legal, privacy, and confidentiality requirements. JP3 may withhold or request revision of material that includes confidential information or potentially defamatory statements unrelated to the scientific substance of the discussion, following the considerations in the COPE Flowchart on Handling Post-publication Critiques.

10. Editorial Decisions and Communication

The editor will communicate the outcome of the assessment to the relevant parties where appropriate. Possible outcomes include declining the comment, requesting revision, inviting a response from the original authors, publishing the discussion, or initiating a separate research-integrity procedure. The journal's decision will be based on the merits of the case and the relevant editorial policies, guided by the COPE Flowchart on Handling Post-publication Critiques.

JP3 aims to handle post-publication discussions within a reasonable period. Where a discussion requires further review, a response from the original authors, or consultation with an institution, the timeframe may be extended. The editorial office will seek to keep the relevant parties informed of significant delays, consistent with the COPE guidance on managing post-publication discussions.

11. Policy Review

JP3 will periodically review this policy to ensure that it remains appropriate for the journal's editorial practices and consistent with developments in publication ethics. This policy is informed by COPE Core Practice 10: Post-publication discussions and corrections, the COPE Flowchart on Handling Post-publication Critiques, and the COPE Retraction Guidelines.