JPPMI | PUBLICATION ETHICS AND SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION
Encouraging constructive scholarly discussion, community feedback, and responsible evaluation of published articles.
Jurnal Pengabdian dan Pengembangan Masyarakat Indonesia (JPPMI) recognizes that scholarly evaluation does not end when an article is published. Constructive post-publication discussion contributes to transparency, improves the interpretation of findings, and supports the continuing development of evidence-informed community engagement.
JPPMI welcomes substantive questions, scholarly critiques, alternative interpretations, clarifications, and relevant feedback concerning published articles. Contributions may come from researchers, educators, practitioners, community organizations, program partners, beneficiaries, and interested readers.
All contributions are subject to editorial assessment. Post-publication discussion is intended to improve the scholarly record and encourage responsible dialogue, not to provide an unrestricted forum for personal disputes, promotional messages, or unsupported allegations.
This policy establishes procedures for receiving, evaluating, and responding to post-publication comments and critiques concerning articles published in JPPMI.
It applies to discussions about the scholarly content, methodological quality, reported implementation, evaluation, interpretation, and ethical aspects of published community engagement activities.
Discussion may occur immediately after publication or when relevant questions or evidence emerge at a later date. The age of an article alone does not invalidate a credible concern.
JPPMI welcomes relevant post-publication contributions from:
Contributors should identify any relevant financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests that may affect the interpretation of their comments.
The journal may consider several forms of post-publication communication.
| Contribution Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Scholarly Commentary | Evidence-based observations concerning the methods, implementation, findings, or interpretation of a published article. |
| Critical Discussion | Reasoned disagreement, alternative interpretations, methodological critique, or discussion of limitations. |
| Questions and Clarifications | Requests for additional explanation of program methods, evaluation instruments, reported outcomes, or conclusions. |
| Community Partner Feedback | Relevant feedback from community partners or beneficiaries concerning the accuracy of reported activities, participation, implementation, or outcomes. |
| Author Clarifications | Responses from the original authors explaining or clarifying information already presented in the article. |
| Integrity and Correction Concerns | Evidence-based concerns about errors, unreliable reporting, participant protection, or possible misconduct requiring separate editorial evaluation. |
JPPMI recognizes that community engagement publications involve activities conducted with communities rather than only observations made in controlled research settings.
Accordingly, post-publication discussion may address questions specific to community service and development activities, including:
Authors are expected to distinguish demonstrated program results from expectations, assumptions, or future projections. Constructive feedback should similarly acknowledge the actual design and limitations of the reported activities.
Individuals wishing to submit post-publication comments should contact the JPPMI editorial office using the official email channel.
OFFICIAL DISCUSSION CHANNEL
JPPMI Editorial Office
Email: jurnalmpci@gmail.com
Suggested email subject: Post-Publication Discussion – [Article Title or DOI]
The submission should include:
Community members who are unable to prepare a formal academic commentary may submit a concise, factual explanation. The editorial office may request clarification or additional evidence when appropriate.
All post-publication contributions are subject to editorial assessment before any public dissemination through the journal.
The editorial office considers:
The journal may decline comments that contain personal attacks, discriminatory language, defamatory statements, spam, promotional material, unsupported accusations, or content unrelated to the article.
Moderation is not intended to suppress well-supported scholarly criticism. Critical viewpoints may be considered even when the original authors disagree with them.
STEP 01
The editorial office receives and records the contribution, identifies the article concerned, and determines whether the matter is suitable for scholarly discussion or requires another editorial procedure.
STEP 02
An editor assesses the relevance, substance, supporting evidence, and possible implications of the contribution. Independent expert advice may be requested for complex scholarly matters.
STEP 03
When appropriate, the corresponding author of the original article is invited to provide a reasoned response, clarification, or supporting documentation within a reasonable period.
STEP 04
The editor determines whether the matter requires a private clarification, formal scholarly exchange, correction, expression of concern, retraction assessment, or no further action.
STEP 05
The outcome is documented and communicated to relevant parties. Any formal public notice is clearly identified and linked to the original article where technically possible.
The time required for editorial consideration depends on the complexity of the issue, availability of evidence, and whether expert or institutional assessment is necessary.
Authors whose published work receives substantive criticism should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised.
Responses should address the specific comments, explain the relevant methodology or interpretation, and provide supporting evidence where necessary.
When appropriate, JPPMI may consider a formal scholarly exchange consisting of a commentary and an author response. Such material may undergo editorial review or independent peer review before publication.
If formal commentary or a response is published, it should be clearly identified, attributable to its authors, and connected to the original article. DOI registration and other metadata arrangements will depend on the journal's applicable publication workflow.
The absence of an author response does not automatically establish the validity of a criticism or prevent the journal from assessing a credible concern.
A disagreement regarding interpretation, methodological choices, or the practical significance of reported outcomes does not, by itself, constitute publication misconduct.
Concerns involving fabricated community activities, manipulated evaluation results, falsified partner documentation, misleading photographic evidence, plagiarism, unauthorized disclosure of participant information, or other potential integrity violations require separate assessment.
Such matters will be handled through JPPMI's publication ethics and misconduct procedures, with appropriate safeguards for evidence, confidentiality, impartiality, and the rights of affected parties.
When post-publication discussion identifies a substantive error or serious reliability concern, JPPMI will determine whether corrective action is required.
| Editorial Action | Typical Circumstances |
|---|---|
| Clarification | Additional explanation is useful, while the published record remains substantially accurate. |
| Correction | A documented error affects accuracy or interpretation but does not invalidate the article's central contribution. |
| Expression of Concern | A potentially serious issue remains unresolved and readers need to be informed while assessment continues. |
| Retraction | The article is materially unreliable or another sufficiently serious reason warrants correction of the scholarly record through retraction. |
Formal corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions are governed by JPPMI's applicable post-publication integrity procedures. Material changes to published articles must not be made silently.
Contributions concerning community engagement activities must respect the dignity, confidentiality, and legitimate interests of community participants and collaborating organizations.
Public discussion must not disclose participant names, recognizable photographs, medical information, personal identifiers, confidential partner records, or other protected information without an appropriate lawful and ethical basis.
Community partner feedback may be highly relevant when evaluating the accuracy of program implementation or outcome reporting. However, private correspondence, individual testimony, and unpublished records should not be made public without appropriate consideration of consent and confidentiality.
The editorial office may request a confidential version of supporting evidence or a de-identified summary suitable for scholarly consideration.
Editorial decisions concerning post-publication discussion are based on relevance, evidence, scholarly significance, ethical considerations, and applicable journal policies.
Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must not independently determine the outcome of a concern involving their own work, close collaborators, or institutional interests.
Post-publication contributions are not accepted or rejected on the basis of whether they are favorable to the journal, its publisher, editorial team, or authors.
Concerns involving editorial conduct may be considered through the journal's Complaints and Appeals procedure, using an appropriate independent handling arrangement.
When a formal commentary, response, correction, or other notice is published, JPPMI will seek to make it accessible and appropriately associated with the relevant article.
Editorial correspondence, unverified allegations, confidential evidence, and unpublished assessments will not automatically be made publicly accessible.
The journal maintains appropriate records of concerns received, author correspondence, editorial assessments, decisions, and formal corrective actions, subject to applicable confidentiality and privacy requirements.
Post-publication discussion may inform improvements to community engagement reporting standards, reviewer guidance, editorial practice, and future scholarly work.
Readers and community partners may use the following template when submitting a question or substantive comment concerning a published JPPMI article.
To: jurnalmpci@gmail.com
Subject: Post-Publication Discussion – [Article Title or DOI]
Dear JPPMI Editorial Team,
I would like to submit a post-publication comment concerning the article entitled "[Article Title]", published in JPPMI, DOI: [DOI or Article URL].
My comment or concern relates to [identify the specific section, method, finding, interpretation, or reported community engagement activity].
The relevant information or supporting evidence is as follows: [provide a concise explanation and supporting references or documentation].
I respectfully request editorial consideration of this matter and would appreciate clarification regarding the appropriate next steps.
I confirm that this submission is made in good faith and that any accompanying evidence has been shared in accordance with relevant confidentiality and privacy obligations.
Sincerely,
[Full Name]
[Institution or Community Organization, if applicable]
[Email Address]
[Relevant Competing Interests, if any]
JPPMI regards constructive post-publication discussion as an important component of responsible scholarly communication and the ongoing evaluation of community engagement practice.
The journal encourages evidence-based discussion, respectful engagement with authors and community partners, and proportionate editorial action when published information requires clarification or correction.
Through this policy, JPPMI seeks to strengthen the credibility, transparency, and practical relevance of published community engagement scholarship.
