Post Publication Discussion
Jurnal Hurriah: Jurnal Evaluasi Pendidikan dan Penelitian (Journal of Educational Evaluation and Research) welcomes substantive discussion of its published articles. Readers and authors may raise questions, offer evidence-based criticism, propose alternative interpretations, or identify errors that need editorial attention.
Publication does not close scholarly debate. The journal supports respectful, transparent discussion that advances understanding and helps maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.
On this page
Discussion Workflow
1
Comment submitted
The commenter writes to the editorial office through the Contact page, identifying the article concerned.
?
2
Editorial screening and assessment
An editor without a conflict of interest checks relevance, accuracy, tone, and scholarly value.
?
3
Author response
The original authors are normally invited to reply within a reasonable period.
?
4
Decision
The comment and response are published, revised, or declined, or the matter moves to corrections or an integrity review.
?
5
Linked publication
Published discussions are linked to the original article so readers can follow the exchange.
1. Scope of Discussion
Discussion should relate directly to an identifiable article published in the journal. Relevant contributions may address:
1
Interpretation
Findings, sources, theoretical arguments, or alternative interpretations of published results.
2
Methods
Research design, instruments, statistical or analytical procedures, and limitations.
3
Evidence
Relevant evidence or scholarship that may affect the article's conclusions.
4
Educational implications
Constructive debate about programme evaluations, policy frameworks, or practice implications presented in the article.
5
Accuracy and reproducibility
Factual inaccuracies, omissions, unclear statements, or questions about reproducibility.
6
Integrity concerns
Ethical or publication integrity issues requiring editorial examination.
Disagreement with an article's theoretical position or conclusions is not by itself evidence of error or misconduct. Discussion must stay scholarly and professional, explain its reasoning, and engage fairly with the published argument. Personal attacks and speculative accusations will not be considered.
2. How to Submit a Comment
Send comments to the editorial office through the Contact page, using the subject line:
Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title]
Please include:
The article title, author names, issue, and DOI or article URL.
Your name, affiliation where applicable, and contact details.
A clear explanation of the point raised, identifying the relevant passages, pages, tables, or figures.
Supporting references, evidence, or analysis.
Any relevant conflicts of interest.
Whether the message is for public discussion or confidential editorial consideration.
Comments should be concise, focused, and detailed enough to be assessed. There is no fixed expiry date for raising a substantive concern about a published article.
People reporting sensitive concerns may request confidentiality. Anonymous reports are considered when they contain specific and credible information, although anonymous allegations are not automatically eligible for publication as scholarly commentary.
3. Editorial Assessment
An editor without a relevant conflict of interest assesses each submission for relevance, accuracy, clarity, supporting evidence, scholarly rigour, and civility. The journal may ask for clarification or revision and may consult an independent specialist.
?
Comments must address the work rather than individuals. The journal will not publish harassment, discriminatory language, unsupported personal accusations, promotional material, or unnecessary disclosure of confidential information.
?
A critical assessment will not be rejected merely because it challenges the authors or the journal. Equally, submitting a comment does not guarantee publication.
?
If a message mixes inappropriate wording with a credible substantive concern, the editor may ask for the wording to be revised while examining the underlying evidence separately.
4. Author Responses
Authors are normally invited to respond to substantive comments on their article (the right of reply). The editorial office provides the relevant points and sets a reasonable response period appropriate to their complexity.
?
Responses should address the issues directly, provide supporting evidence where needed, and acknowledge any established errors or limitations.
?
Responses are held to the same standards of relevance, accuracy, and respectful language as the original comment.
?
Authors may request additional time with an explanation.
?
Failure to respond does not show that a criticism is correct and does not automatically prevent publication of a comment that meets the journal's standards. Authors have no veto over legitimate scholarly criticism.
5. Publication of Discussions
Accepted contributions may be published as one of the following post-publication correspondence categories, distinct from original research and review articles:
CommentA reader's evidence-based critique or commentary on a published article.
Author ResponseThe original authors' reply to a published comment.
Editorial NoteA note from the editors that clarifies the status of an article or discussion.
?
Published discussions identify and link to the article concerned, and the article page links back to the discussion where feasible, so readers can follow the full exchange.
?
Comments and responses undergo editorial assessment and may receive independent expert review. They are not described as externally peer-reviewed unless that process took place.
?
A comment and response may be published together or separately. Further exchanges may be considered when they add material new evidence or analysis; repetitive exchanges may be closed with an explanation.
?
Discussion on external scholarly platforms may inform editorial assessment, but readers seeking formal action should notify the editorial office directly, as the journal cannot guarantee that it will find every discussion elsewhere.
6. Errors and Integrity Concerns
Comments identifying possible errors or misconduct are assessed under the journal's relevant policies. Confidential allegations are not automatically published as discussion contributions. Where discussion or internal review shows significant problems, the journal acts under its Correction and Retraction Policy:
CorrectionFor specific errors, typographical mistakes, or omissions that do not alter the principal findings.
Expression of ConcernTo alert readers to serious unresolved questions while an investigation is under way.
RetractionWhen fatal flaws, fabricated data, or severe ethical breaches invalidate the conclusions.
Publishing a comment or an author response does not replace a formal correction or other editorial notice when the published record needs amending. Scholarly disagreement alone is not a basis for retraction. Decisions follow the Allegation of Research Misconduct and Correction and Retraction policies.
7. Communication and Appeals
The editorial office acknowledges submissions where contact details are available, then communicates its decision or requests further information. Assessment time depends on the complexity of the issues and on the need for author responses or independent advice.
A person who believes a decision involved a factual error, a material procedural problem, or overlooked evidence may request reconsideration through the Contact page, identifying the decision and giving specific reasons and supporting information.
Appeals are considered by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief are referred to the publisher (Yayasan Hurriah) for independent handling.
Related: Publication Ethics · Conflict of Interest · Correction and Retraction
