Post-Publication Discussion

Post-Publication Discussions Policy

1. Purpose

MEV encourages constructive, evidence-based discussion of articles published in the journal. Post-publication discussion supports scientific self-correction, enables readers to question or clarify published findings, and contributes to the continuing evaluation of research after publication.

MEV handles post-publication discussions fairly, transparently, and in accordance with relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Scope

Post-publication discussions may address:

• research methods, data, analyses, or results;

• reproducibility or interpretation of findings;

• limitations that may not have been adequately addressed;

• alternative scientific explanations;

• the accuracy or completeness of citations;

• implications of the published findings;

• replication or validation of the reported work; or

• other matters that contribute meaningfully to scientific understanding.

A post-publication discussion must relate directly to an article published in MEV and make a substantive scholarly contribution.

This process must not be used:

• to appeal a decision concerning an unpublished manuscript;

• to submit general complaints about editorial services or journal operations;

• to pursue personal, institutional, political, or commercial disputes;

• to make defamatory or unsupported statements;

• to demand citations without a valid scientific basis; or

• to publish substantial new research that would be more appropriately submitted as a Research Article.

Complaints about journal procedures or editorial decisions will be handled under MEV’s Complaints and Appeals Policy. Suspected research or publication misconduct will be handled under MEV’s Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

3. Forms of Post-Publication Discussion

MEV facilitates formal post-publication discussion through:

• Letter to the Editor, submitted by a reader or other interested party; and

• Reply to the Letter to the Editor, submitted by the author or authors of the article being discussed.

Letters and Replies are scholarly communications but are not classified as Research Articles or Review Articles.

MEV does not impose a fixed time limit for raising a post-publication discussion. However, readers are encouraged to submit comments promptly after identifying a matter requiring clarification or debate.

4. Submitting a Letter to the Editor

A proposed Letter to the Editor should be submitted to the MEV Editorial Office at:

Email: jmev@brin.go.id
Recommended subject: Post-Publication Discussion – [Title of the Article]

The submission should include:

• the title, DOI, URL, and publication details of the article concerned;

• a clear and concise description of the matter being discussed;

• scientific reasoning and supporting evidence;

• relevant references;

• the names, affiliations, and contact details of all letter authors;

• a declaration of competing interests;

• relevant funding information; and

• disclosure of substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies, where applicable.

The Letter must be original, written in professional and respectful language, and not under consideration by another journal. It must comply with relevant MEV policies on authorship, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, confidentiality, copyright, and responsible use of artificial intelligence.

Authors of a Letter are responsible for the accuracy of all statements, evidence, citations, and interpretations presented.

5. Initial Editorial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the proposed Letter:

• falls within the scope of post-publication discussion;

• raises a substantive and scientifically relevant issue;

• is supported by appropriate evidence or reasoning;

• is expressed clearly, objectively, and professionally;

• complies with MEV’s ethical and editorial policies; and

• should be handled instead as a correction request, complaint, appeal, or allegation of misconduct.

A Letter may be declined without further review when it:

• contains no substantive scientific argument;

• merely expresses disagreement without supporting reasoning;

• repeats matters that have already been adequately addressed without presenting relevant new evidence;

• contains personal attacks, abusive language, or potentially defamatory material;

• concerns matters outside the published article;

• primarily promotes the author’s own work or seeks unnecessary citations;

• discloses confidential, private, or unlawfully obtained information; or

• would be more appropriately submitted as another type of manuscript.

A Letter will not be declined solely because the authors of the original article disagree with it or choose not to respond.

6. Editorial and External Review

Letters to the Editor and Replies are normally subject to editorial review. The editor may seek independent external review when the discussion involves specialized methods, statistical analysis, new data, complex technical claims, or other matters requiring additional expertise.

The review process will consider:

• scientific accuracy;

• relevance to the original article;

• quality and sufficiency of the evidence;

• clarity and fairness of the argument;

• potential contribution to scientific understanding; and

• compliance with publication ethics.

The editor may request revision, supporting data, additional analysis, clarification, or removal of inappropriate statements before making a decision.

The published Letter or Reply will be identified according to the review process it has undergone. External peer review of a Letter or Reply does not convert it into a Research Article.

7. Opportunity for Author Reply

When a Letter is considered potentially suitable for publication, the authors of the original article will normally be invited to respond. The Letter, or a sufficiently detailed description of the issues raised, will be provided to them.

The original authors will be given a reasonable period to prepare a Reply. The Reply should address the scientific issues raised and must comply with the same standards of accuracy, evidence, professional language, competing-interest disclosure, and publication ethics as the Letter.

The original authors are not required to agree with the Letter. Scientific disagreement may remain after both sides have presented their evidence and reasoning.

The decision to publish a scientifically valid Letter is not dependent on the original authors submitting a Reply. If the authors decline to respond or do not respond within the period provided, MEV may publish the Letter with an appropriate statement that the authors were invited to reply.

The editor will ordinarily limit the discussion to one Letter and one Reply. Further exchanges may be considered only when they provide substantial new evidence or are necessary to clarify an important scientific issue. The editor may close a discussion when further correspondence becomes repetitive or no longer contributes meaningfully to the scholarly record.

8. Possible Editorial Decisions

Following assessment and, where applicable, external review, MEV may:

• accept the Letter or Reply;

• request revision;

• decline publication;

• refer the matter for assessment under another MEV policy;

• request clarification or supporting material from the original authors;

• initiate a formal correction process; or

• initiate or refer an investigation into possible research or publication misconduct.

The decision to publish a Letter or Reply rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.

If the original article was authored or handled by the Editor-in-Chief or another member of the editorial team, the discussion will be assigned to an independent editor who was not involved in the original article and has no relevant conflict of interest.

9. Errors Identified Through Post-Publication Discussion

When a Letter or other post-publication communication identifies a possible error, MEV will assess whether the error affects the article’s accuracy, interpretation, or conclusions.

Where appropriate, MEV may issue a correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, withdrawal, removal, or replacement in accordance with its Corrections, Retractions, Withdrawals, Removals, and Replacements Policy.

A formal correction is an editorial notice used to amend the scholarly record. It is not replaced by, or treated merely as, a Letter to the Editor.

A scientific Letter may still be published when it makes a valuable contribution to the discussion, even if the issue also results in a formal correction or other post-publication action.

10. Concerns About Possible Misconduct

A Letter to the Editor must not be used as a substitute for reporting suspected research or publication misconduct.

When a post-publication comment raises concerns involving possible fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated data or images, authorship misconduct, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, paper-mill activity, or other serious ethical breaches, MEV may pause the Letter process and handle the matter under its Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

The assessment of an allegation may remain confidential while it is ongoing. Depending on the outcome, MEV may resume consideration of the Letter, take formal action concerning the article, or close the matter without further action.

11. Publication and Linking

Accepted Letters and Replies will be published as separately identified and citable items. They will normally:

• have their own title and publication metadata;

• receive a DOI;

• identify the article being discussed;

• be electronically linked to the original article;

• be published together where practicable;

• disclose relevant competing interests and funding; and

• be made openly accessible under the licensing terms applied by MEV.

The landing page of the original article will be updated, where technically possible, to provide links to related Letters, Replies, corrections, Expressions of Concern, or other post-publication notices.

Publication will occur as soon as reasonably practicable, normally in the next available issue. The integrity and accessibility of the original article will be preserved unless a formal post-publication action requires otherwise.

12. Discussions on External Platforms

MEV recognizes that discussion of published articles may also occur through scholarly forums, institutional correspondence, social media, or independent post-publication review platforms.

MEV may consider credible and verifiable concerns raised publicly. However, posting a concern on an external platform does not necessarily constitute formal notification to the journal. A person seeking an official assessment or response from MEV should report the matter directly to the Editorial Office.

External commentary will be assessed according to the same standards of evidence, fairness, confidentiality, and publication ethics as concerns submitted directly to the journal.

13. Complaints About the Process

A person directly involved in a post-publication discussion may submit a complaint when they believe that MEV did not follow its stated procedure, an undisclosed conflict of interest affected the process, or relevant evidence was not considered.

Such complaints will be handled under MEV’s Complaints and Appeals Policy. Mere disagreement with an editorial or scientific judgment does not, by itself, establish grounds for reconsideration.

14. Policy Review

MEV will periodically review and update this policy to remain consistent with developments in scholarly communication, publication ethics, applicable law, and COPE guidance.

Last updated: August 2026