Post-Publication Discussion Policy

Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka promotes open, critical, constructive, and evidence-based scholarly dialogue concerning articles published in the journal. Nursing and healthcare knowledge develops through continuous evaluation, methodological scrutiny, theoretical debate, clinical reflection, and the exchange of diverse perspectives.

Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka welcomes post-publication contributions from researchers, academics, nursing professionals, healthcare practitioners, educators, policymakers, readers, and other members of the scholarly community that strengthen research quality, nursing practice, and publication integrity.

This policy is informed by principles of responsible scholarly communication, including transparency, accountability, fairness, confidentiality, and the ethical guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy establishes procedures for submitting, evaluating, responding to, and publishing scholarly comments or concerns about articles published in Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka.

Its objectives are to:

1. Facilitate constructive academic dialogue;
2. Encourage critical assessment of research methods, theoretical frameworks, evidence, clinical implications, and conclusions;
3. Enable authors to clarify, defend, or reconsider their arguments and findings;
4. Promote transparency and accountability in nursing and healthcare research;
5. Identify errors or concerns affecting the reliability, interpretation, or ethical integrity of published work; and
6. Maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

The policy applies to all article types published in Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka, including original research articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, review articles, conceptual and theoretical articles, methods and measurement articles, brief research reports, and perspectives.

2. Forms of Post-Publication Discussion
3. Letter to the Editor

Readers may submit scholarly correspondence addressing specific aspects of a published article, including:

• Research design, sampling, recruitment, participant selection, or analytical procedures;
• Theoretical assumptions, conceptual definitions, or nursing models;
• Interpretation of clinical observations, interviews, survey responses, statistical results, or other evidence;
• Clinical relevance, patient outcomes, nursing interventions, and implications for professional practice;
• Alternative explanations, competing interpretations, or relevant evidence that extends or challenges the original contribution; and
• Factual inaccuracies, inconsistencies, methodological limitations, or concerns about research ethics.

Letters must focus on scholarly issues and avoid personal attacks, discriminatory language, or unsupported allegations.

1. Author Response

Authors of the original article will normally be offered an opportunity to respond to substantive criticism.

Responses should address the concerns clearly, respectfully, and with appropriate evidence. Authors may provide additional explanations, references, analyses, or clarification of the scope and limitations of their conclusions.

Where a criticism identifies a verified error, authors are encouraged to acknowledge the issue and cooperate with the journal in determining whether a formal correction or other editorial action is required.

1. Scholarly Commentary or Rebuttal

Substantial critiques supported by theoretical reasoning, empirical evidence, clinical knowledge, or methodological analysis may be considered as independent commentaries or rebuttal articles.

These submissions may undergo external peer review to assess their accuracy, fairness, originality, ethical compliance, and scholarly contribution.

A commentary may challenge an article’s conclusions without necessarily establishing that the original research is unreliable. Both the critique and the original article must be evaluated on their scholarly merits.

1. Corrections and Clarifications

Where post-publication discussion identifies errors requiring formal amendment, Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka may initiate procedures under its Correction and Retraction Policy.

Publishing a commentary or author response does not replace the need to correct a verified error in the original article.

3. Submission Criteria

Post-publication contributions must meet the following requirements:

1. Relevance: Directly address an article published in Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka.
2. Scholarly Substance: Examine research methods, concepts, evidence, interpretations, clinical implications, or conclusions.
3. Supporting Evidence: Provide relevant sources, documentation, analytical reasoning, or comparative evidence.
4. Fair Representation: Accurately describe the original article and distinguish its claims from the commentator’s interpretation.
5. Professional Language: Use respectful, constructive, and academically appropriate language.
6. Research Integrity: Avoid plagiarism, fabricated evidence, deliberate misrepresentation, discriminatory language, harassment, and unsupported accusations.
7. Transparency: Disclose relevant financial, institutional, professional, clinical, commercial, or organizational interests.
8. Originality: Meet the journal’s originality requirements when submitted for formal publication.
9. Participant Protection: Avoid disclosing identifiable patient information or confidential research data without appropriate authorization.

Formal submissions intended for publication must be written in English and follow the applicable journal guidelines.

Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka may decline contributions that are irrelevant, unsupported, substantially repetitive, defamatory, or inconsistent with responsible scholarly discussion. Critical, controversial, or scientifically sensitive arguments will be assessed on their scholarly merits rather than solely on whether they agree with the original authors.

4. Submission Procedures and Timeframe

Contributions should be submitted through the journal’s official editorial communication channels and include:

• The title and authors of the article discussed;
• Publication details, including volume, issue, year, and DOI or URL, where available;
• A clear explanation of the issue being raised;
• Supporting references or documentation;
• The contributor’s name, affiliation where applicable, and contact information; and
• A conflict-of-interest declaration.

Letters are preferably submitted within six months of the article’s first online publication to encourage timely discussion.

Later submissions may be considered when they present important evidence or significant scholarly concerns. There is no fixed deadline for reporting serious research-integrity concerns or substantial errors.

Confidential integrity reports need not be prepared as publishable commentaries. Anonymous reports may be assessed when they provide sufficiently specific and verifiable evidence.

5. Editorial Evaluation and Review

Stage 1: Initial Assessment

The Editorial Team aims to conduct an initial assessment within seven working days of receiving a sufficiently documented submission.

Assessment considers relevance, clarity, evidential support, scholarly significance, ethical compliance, participant protection, and any conflicts of interest. This timeframe is a target rather than a guaranteed deadline.

Stage 2: Author Notification

When substantive questions warrant a response, the editor will normally share the relevant comments with the corresponding author.

Authors will ordinarily be invited to respond within fourteen working days. Reasonable extensions may be granted where additional analysis, data verification, or consultation is necessary.

An author’s refusal or failure to respond does not automatically establish the validity of a criticism. It also does not prevent publication of a sufficiently supported critique or the issuance of a necessary editorial notice.

Stage 3: Independent Evaluation

Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka may consult independent reviewers or specialists when submissions raise complex methodological, statistical, clinical, theoretical, ethical, or interpretive questions.

Evaluators must have appropriate expertise and disclose relevant competing interests. Anyone with a conflict that could compromise impartial assessment must not participate in the relevant decision.

Stage 4: Editorial Decision

The editor may:

• Accept the contribution;
• Request revision or further evidence;
• Invite additional clarification from the original authors;
• Recommend a suitable publication format;
• Refer the concern to correction or research-misconduct procedures; or
• Decline the submission with an appropriate explanation.

Stage 5: Publication and Linking

Accepted contributions may appear in a forthcoming issue or another appropriate online publication format.

Where technically feasible, the journal will link the commentary, author response, original article, and related editorial notices. Their relationship will be clearly identified to readers.

6. Responsibilities and Rights of Original Authors

Authors are entitled to respond to substantive scholarly criticism and are expected to:

1. Engage professionally and constructively;
2. Provide accurate explanations supported by evidence;
3. Acknowledge verified errors or relevant limitations;
4. Supply supporting information when reasonably necessary and ethically permissible;
5. Protect participant confidentiality and sensitive research materials; and
6. Cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries concerning the published work.

Authors are not required to agree with every criticism. Disagreements should be addressed through reasoned argument rather than personal, professional, or institutional pressure.

Requests for additional information must respect informed-consent conditions, confidentiality commitments, research-ethics requirements, institutional policies, and restrictions on sensitive clinical records or health data.

Where the requested information cannot ethically or legally be shared, authors should explain the restriction and, where possible, provide an appropriate alternative, such as anonymized data, supplementary analysis, or a methodological clarification.

7. Discussion in Nursing and Healthcare Research

Post-publication discussion in Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka may address:

• Nursing assessment, diagnosis, planning, implementation, and evaluation;
• Clinical nursing interventions, patient outcomes, and evidence-based practice;
• Community and family nursing, health promotion, and disease prevention;
• Maternal, child, gerontological, mental health, oncology, palliative, emergency, and critical care nursing;
• Nursing education, simulation-based learning, clinical supervision, and professional competency;
• Nursing management, leadership, workforce development, and healthcare service quality;
• Patient safety, clinical risk, infection prevention, and quality improvement;
• Research design, sampling, instrument validation, statistical analysis, and interpretation of qualitative or quantitative findings;
• Systematic reviews, evidence synthesis, and the applicability of findings to different healthcare settings;
• Research ethics, informed consent, confidentiality, and the protection of patients and research participants; and
• Reproducibility, generalizability, implementation, and practical implications of nursing research.

Discussion should recognize relevant clinical, community, cultural, educational, professional, and institutional contexts.

Differences in scientific interpretation, methodological choices, or professional perspectives do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Criticism must identify a substantive scholarly issue and support it with appropriate reasoning or evidence.

Particular care is required when discussion concerns vulnerable populations, sensitive health conditions, cancer, mental health, family circumstances, or potentially stigmatizing health and social issues. Contributors must avoid unnecessary identification of patients, research participants, students, nurses, or healthcare institutions when such identification could cause harm or breach confidentiality.

8. Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

Participants in post-publication discussion must maintain integrity, fairness, and professional respect.

Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka does not permit:

• Personal attacks, harassment, intimidation, or threats;
• Discriminatory or stigmatizing language;
• Fabrication or manipulation of evidence;
• Deliberate misrepresentation of published arguments;
• Unauthorized disclosure of confidential research materials;
• Unnecessary identification of protected participants; or
• Concealment of relevant competing interests.

Particular care is required where disclosure could compromise patient privacy, reveal confidential health information, stigmatize individuals or communities, or otherwise cause harm to patients, research participants, students, nurses, or healthcare professionals.

Unpublished correspondence and sensitive supporting materials will be handled confidentially to the extent practicable, subject to legitimate editorial requirements and applicable obligations. Contributors will be informed when their correspondence is being considered for formal publication.

Personal health information must not be included in published correspondence unless its inclusion is ethically and legally appropriate and the necessary permissions have been obtained. Removing names alone may not be sufficient to prevent identification.

9. Relationship with Misconduct and Retraction Procedures

Post-publication discussion primarily supports scholarly dialogue. Methodological criticism, disagreement about clinical practice, or an alternative interpretation does not, by itself, establish research misconduct.

When credible evidence raises concerns about plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical research, inappropriate authorship, or manipulation of the peer-review process, Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka may initiate assessment under its Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy.

Depending on the evidence, the journal may publish:

1. A Correction: For errors that can be addressed without fundamentally invalidating the article;
2. An Expression of Concern: For serious unresolved concerns requiring notification to readers; or
3. A Retraction: When the article’s reliability or ethical integrity is fundamentally compromised.

Corrective action may be necessary even when an error was unintentional. Decisions will be based on the available evidence, the seriousness of the concern, and the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

Where appropriate, the journal may seek clarification from the authors’ institutions or relevant ethics bodies. The journal’s editorial assessment concerns the reliability and integrity of the publication and does not replace formal institutional investigations into research conduct.

10. Transparency and Accessibility

Published discussions should:

• Clearly identify the original article;
• Provide relevant references and supporting evidence;
• Distinguish commentators’ views from those of the original authors;
• Include or link author responses when available;
• Link related corrections or editorial notices where feasible; and
• Remain accessible as part of the journal’s publication record.

Publication of a critique does not imply endorsement of every argument it contains or automatic rejection of the original article’s conclusions.

Editorial decisions concerning post-publication discussion should be based on scholarly quality, evidence, fairness, and ethical compliance. The journal will not suppress a well-supported critique solely because it challenges the conclusions of a published article or is professionally sensitive.

11. Appeals and Reconsideration

Contributors or original authors may appeal an editorial decision through the journal’s official communication channels.

Appeals should identify the decision, explain specific factual or procedural concerns, and provide supporting evidence.

Where appropriate, an independent editor or qualified Editorial Board member without a relevant conflict of interest will assess the appeal. The journal will determine whether further review, clarification, or editorial action is warranted.

Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief or an editor directly involved in the disputed decision should be referred to an appropriate independent editorial or publishing representative.

12. Commitment to Scholarly Dialogue

Jurnal Keperawatan Merdeka recognizes post-publication discussion as an essential part of critical inquiry, professional learning, and academic accountability.

The journal encourages evidence-based engagement across diverse perspectives while safeguarding fairness, participant protection, confidentiality, and research integrity.

This policy operates alongside the journal’s Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest, Allegations of Research Misconduct, Peer Review, and Correction and Retraction policies.