Journal of Medical Laboratory Science (JMLS) promotes open, critical, constructive, and evidence-based scholarly dialogue concerning articles published in the journal. Scholarly knowledge develops through continuous evaluation, methodological scrutiny, analytical validation, and the exchange of diverse perspectives within the medical laboratory community.

Journal of Medical Laboratory Science (JMLS) welcomes post-publication contributions from researchers, clinical laboratory professionals, medical technologists, pathologists, academics, practitioners, and other members of the scholarly community that strengthen research quality, diagnostic accuracy, and publication integrity.

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

1. Purpose and Scope

This policy establishes procedures for submitting, evaluating, responding to, and publishing scholarly comments or concerns about articles published in Journal of Medical Laboratory Science (JMLS).

Its objectives are to:

1. Facilitate constructive academic and diagnostic dialogue;
2. Encourage critical assessment of laboratory research methods, assay validation, diagnostic accuracy, statistical analyses, and clinical conclusions;
3. Enable authors to clarify, defend, or reconsider their experimental arguments, protocols, and findings;
4. Promote transparency and accountability in laboratory reporting;
5. Identify analytical errors, contamination issues, or methodological concerns affecting the reliability of published work; and
6. Maintain the accuracy and integrity of the medical laboratory scholarly record.

The policy applies to all article types published in JMLS, including empirical research, systematic reviews, diagnostic accuracy studies, methodological contributions, short communications, and scholarly perspectives.

2. Forms of Post-Publication Discussion

     A. Letter to the Editor 

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

• Laboratory assay design, sampling techniques, patient/specimen cohort selection, or analytical procedures;
• Reagent specificity, sensitivity, cross-reactivity, or limit of detection (LOD);
• Interpretation of laboratory findings, microscopic images, flow cytometry plots, molecular assays, or statistical data;
• Quality control (QC/QA) and calibration protocols;
• Alternative diagnostic interpretations or competing scientific arguments;
• Factual inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or limitations in laboratory protocols; and
• Relevant empirical evidence that extends or challenges the original contribution.

Letters must focus on scholarly issues and avoid personal attacks 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 (e.g., additional QC data, raw analytical output, or protocol clarifications). Authors may provide additional explanations, references, analyses, or clarification of the scope and limitations of their conclusions.

1. Scholarly Commentary or Rebuttal

Substantial critiques supported by analytical re-evaluation, empirical evidence, or methodological analysis may be considered as independent commentaries or rebuttal articles.

These submissions may undergo external peer review to assess their analytical rigor, fairness, originality, and scholarly contribution to medical laboratory science.

1. Corrections and Clarifications

Where discussion identifies analytical or technical errors requiring formal amendment, JMLS may initiate procedures under its Corrections and Retractions Policy.

Publishing a commentary 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 Journal of Medical Laboratory Science (JMLS).
2. Scholarly Substance: Examine laboratory methods, diagnostic assays, data accuracy, evidence, interpretations, or conclusions.
3. Supporting Evidence: Provide relevant sources, analytical data, comparative evidence, or methodological reasoning.
4. Fair Representation: Accurately describe the original article and distinguish its claims from the commentator’s interpretation.
5. Professional Language: Use respectful and academically appropriate language.
6. Research Integrity: Avoid plagiarism, fabricated laboratory data, discriminatory language, harassment, and unsupported accusations.
7. Transparency: Disclose relevant financial, institutional, commercial (e.g., ties to diagnostic kit/instrument manufacturers), or organizational interests.
8. Originality: Meet the journal’s originality requirements when submitted for formal publication.

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

JMLS may decline contributions that are irrelevant, unsupported, substantially repetitive, or inconsistent with responsible scholarly discussion. Critical or scientifically sensitive arguments will be assessed on their scholarly and analytical merits.

4. Submission Procedures and Timeframe

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

• The title and authors of the article discussed;
• Publication details, including volume, issue, year, and DOI;
• A clear explanation of the scientific or laboratory issue;
• Supporting references, raw data, or documentation;
• The contributor’s name, institutional affiliation, 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 diagnostic evidence or significant scholarly concerns. There is no fixed deadline for reporting serious research integrity concerns, data fabrication, or substantial laboratory 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, diagnostic significance, ethical compliance, and potential conflicts of interest.
• Stage 2: Author Notification: When substantive questions warrant a response, the editor will share the relevant comments with the corresponding author. Authors will ordinarily be invited to respond within fourteen working days. Extensions may be granted where additional laboratory re-analysis or consultation is necessary. An author’s refusal to respond does not prevent publication of a supported critique.
• Stage 3: Independent Evaluation: JMLS may consult independent reviewers or medical laboratory specialists when submissions raise complex methodological, statistical, bioinformatic, or diagnostic validation questions. Evaluators must disclose relevant competing interests.
• Stage 4: Editorial Decision: The editor may accept the contribution, request revisions, invite further clarification, refer the concern to correction/misconduct procedures, or decline the submission with an explanation.
• Stage 5: Publication and Linking: Accepted contributions will be published and digitally linked to the original article to preserve context.

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 laboratory data or protocol details;
3. Acknowledge verified errors, technical limitations, or interference factors;
4. Supply raw laboratory data or QC records when reasonably necessary and ethically permissible;
5. Protect patient confidentiality and biological specimen privacy; and
6. Cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries.

Requests for additional information must respect patient informed consent, confidentiality commitments, biobank restrictions, and research ethics requirements regarding human biological samples and clinical health data.

7. Discussion in Medical Laboratory Science Research

Post-publication discussion in Journal of Medical Laboratory Science (JMLS) may address:

• Hematology, clinical chemistry, medical microbiology, immunology, histopathology, molecular diagnostics, and toxicology assay performance;
• Analytical validity, clinical sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, and limit of detection (LOD) of diagnostic methods;
• Sample collection, anticoagulants, storage conditions, stability, and pre-analytical/post-analytical variables;
• Quality control (QC), External Quality Assessment (EQA), proficiency testing, and reference intervals;
• Diagnostic instrumentation, commercial kit performance, reagent interference, and microfluidic/lab-on-a-chip applications;
• Research design, statistical power, ROC curve analysis, and data interpretation in clinical cohorts;
• Biosafety, biosecurity, and ethical handling of human biological specimens; and
• Reproducibility, transferability, and clinical utility of novel laboratory techniques.

Differences in scientific interpretation, reagent choice, or analytical platforms do not automatically constitute research misconduct. Criticism must identify a substantive scholarly issue supported by appropriate evidence.

8. Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

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

JMLS does not permit:

• Personal attacks, harassment, or threats against authors or reviewers;
• Fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of laboratory data/images;
• Unauthorized disclosure of confidential clinical data or patient records;
• Unnecessary identification of patients or sample donors; or
• Concealment of relevant competing interests (e.g., diagnostic commercial ties).

Particular care is required where disclosure could compromise patient privacy, reveal protected health information (PHI), or violate human ethics committee guidelines.

9. Relationship with Misconduct and Retraction Procedures

Post-publication discussion primarily supports scholarly dialogue. Methodological disagreement or different diagnostic interpretations do not, by themselves, establish misconduct.

When credible evidence raises concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation (e.g., gel electrophoresis or photomicrograph alteration), unethical sample collection, or peer review fraud, JMLS will initiate procedures under its Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy.

Depending on the evidence, the journal may publish:

1. A Correction: For technical or numerical errors that do not alter the main findings;
2. An Expression of Concern: For serious unresolved concerns requiring reader notification; or
3. A Retraction: When the article’s diagnostic validity, data reliability, or ethical integrity is fundamentally compromised.

10. Transparency and Accessibility

Published discussions will clearly identify the original article, provide relevant references, distinguish commentators' views from those of original authors, include author responses when available, and remain permanently linked in the digital archive.

11. Appeals and Reconsideration

Contributors or authors may appeal an editorial decision through official journal channels by providing specific factual or scientific counter-evidence. An independent editor or board member without a conflict of interest will evaluate the appeal.

12. Commitment to Scholarly Dialogue

Journal of Medical Laboratory Science (JMLS) considers post-publication discussion essential for scientific accountability, diagnostic advancement, and research integrity. The journal encourages rigorous, evidence-based engagement across all disciplines of medical laboratory science.