Post-Publication Discussion

Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) welcomes constructive, evidence-based discussion of its published articles. In accordance with the journal’s Ethics Statement, this policy provides a channel for readers and authors to clarify findings, examine interpretations, identify limitations, and raise concerns about the published record.

1. Continuing Scholarly Evaluation

JournalISI’s Peer Review Process requires assessment by at least two reviewers and a minimum of two review rounds before acceptance. Publication nevertheless remains open to subsequent scholarly scrutiny.

New evidence, previously unidentified errors, or alternative interpretations may warrant further consideration. Prior acceptance does not prevent the journal from assessing a substantive concern about a published article.

2. Submitting Comments

Comments, questions, and critiques should be submitted to the Editorial Office at journal-isi@adsii.or.id. Submissions should include:

  • The article’s title and DOI or URL.

  • A clear explanation of the issue being raised.

  • Supporting evidence or references, where applicable.

  • The contributor’s contact details and any relevant conflicts of interest.

Contributions must focus on scholarly content and use respectful language. Personal attacks and unsupported accusations are not appropriate.

Suspected misconduct should be reported through the procedures described in the Allegations of Research Misconduct policy.

3. Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief, supported by the Editorial Board where necessary, assesses the relevance, clarity, and evidential basis of the submission. Further information may be requested, and reviewers or suitably qualified experts may be consulted when technical assessment is required.

Relevant interests are handled under the Conflicts of Interest policy. Confidential correspondence and sensitive information are protected during assessment.

Differences in interpretation or scholarly opinion do not, by themselves, establish misconduct or justify correction or retraction.

4. Author Response and Editorial Follow-Up

Authors may be invited to respond to substantive comments and provide explanations, evidence, or supporting materials. The Editorial Board considers the concerns and any author response before determining whether further action is necessary.

Post-publication comments are handled through the Editorial Office and do not constitute submissions of a new manuscript type. This discussion mechanism does not introduce correspondence, commentary, or letters as additional article categories under the journal’s Types of Manuscript policy.

Where the assessment identifies a need to amend or clarify the published record, the journal may issue an appropriate formal notice under its Corrections and Retractions policy.

The absence of an author response does not automatically prevent the journal from addressing a well-supported concern.

5. Outcomes

Depending on the findings, the journal may provide an explanation to the concerned parties, determine that no further action is needed, or issue a clarification, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

Concerns involving potential misconduct are assessed under the Allegations of Research Misconduct policy. Decisions are documented internally and communicated to the concerned parties, subject to confidentiality requirements.

6. CrossMark and Publication Status

When a discussion results in a formal notice affecting the published record, the notice is linked to the original article and the relevant status information is updated in accordance with the CrossMark Policy.

Readers may use the CrossMark button to check an article’s current status and locate recorded updates. Submission of a comment or allegation does not, by itself, change the article’s publication status.

7. Complaints and Appeals

Concerns about the handling of a discussion may be submitted to journal-isi@adsii.or.id, with a clear explanation and supporting information.

The Editor-in-Chief reviews complaints and appeals in consultation with the Editorial Board where necessary. Where a relevant conflict exists, an uninvolved Editorial Board member or an appropriate publisher representative arranges independent handling.

Cases are addressed objectively, confidentially, and within a reasonable timeframe. Outcomes are communicated to the concerned parties.