POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSION POLICY

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Inovasi dan Riset Pendidikan Dasar (JIRPD), published by PT. Intelektiva Global Nusantara, recognizes post-publication discussion as an integral part of responsible scholarly communication and continuous academic evaluation.

The journal encourages researchers, academics, teachers, educational practitioners, and readers to engage in constructive, evidence-based discussion concerning previously published Original Research Articles and Review Articles in elementary education.

Scholarly contributions may question methodological approaches, interpret educational findings, clarify theoretical arguments, or identify reporting concerns. Such discussion helps maintain the accuracy and integrity of the academic record.

JIRPD considers relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when addressing post-publication comments, corrections, and integrity concerns.

2. Objectives of Post-Publication Discussion

The objectives of this policy are to:

• Encourage critical and constructive scholarly debate in elementary education.
• Promote transparent evaluation of research design, educational interventions, instruments, data analysis, and findings.
• Provide opportunities for published authors to respond to academic questions and criticisms.
• Support identification and correction of significant publication errors.
• Encourage responsible interpretation and application of educational research findings.
• Protect the credibility and reliability of the published scholarly record.

3. Forms of Post-Publication Discussion

4. Eligibility to Participate

Researchers, authors, educators, reviewers, readers, educational institutions, and other relevant individuals may submit scholarly comments or raise questions concerning articles published in JIRPD.

Formal academic comments should identify the contributor's name, relevant affiliation, contact information, and any competing interests.

Anonymous reports involving suspected misconduct may be evaluated when sufficiently specific and supported by verifiable evidence. The editorial office will seek to protect the confidentiality of individuals reporting legitimate concerns.

5. Submission of Comments and Concerns

Post-publication comments should be submitted through JIRPD's official editorial communication channel.

A submission should contain:

• The title, author names, and DOI or URL of the original published article.
• The contributor's full name and contact information.
• A clearly formulated academic question, comment, criticism, or concern.
• Relevant references, supporting evidence, or methodological explanations.
• Disclosure of any competing interests.
• An indication of whether the submission is a scholarly comment or a report of possible research misconduct.

Comments must be respectful, evidence-based, focused on scholarly matters, and written in appropriate academic language. Personal attacks, unsupported allegations, defamatory claims, discriminatory content, and irrelevant submissions will not be accepted as formal academic discussion.

6. Editorial Assessment and Discussion Procedure

JIRPD manages post-publication discussion through the following procedures:

1. Submission and Registration: The editorial office receives and records the comment or concern.
2. Initial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor determines its relevance, scholarly significance, evidence, and appropriateness.
3. Expert Evaluation: An independent expert or reviewer may be consulted where specialized methodological or disciplinary assessment is required.
4. Notification to Authors: Substantive academic comments may be forwarded to the corresponding author of the original article.
5. Author Response: The original authors may be invited to provide a reasoned response or clarification within a reasonable timeframe set by the editorial office.
6. Editorial Determination: The editor decides whether to publish the scholarly exchange, communicate a clarification, decline a submission with reasons, or initiate another appropriate editorial procedure.
7. Publication and Linking: Accepted comments and responses are made available through the journal platform and linked to the relevant original publication where technically supported.
8. Corrective Follow-Up: Substantiated errors or integrity concerns are referred for evaluation under the applicable editorial policies.

A lack of response from the original authors does not prevent the journal from considering credible scholarly or ethical concerns.

7. Author Responses and Scholarly Dialogue

Authors are encouraged to respond constructively to legitimate academic comments and questions concerning their published work.

Responses should focus on the evidence, research methods, interpretation of results, limitations, and relevant academic arguments rather than the personal characteristics or motivations of contributors.

Where appropriate, accepted scholarly comments and author replies may be published together to provide balanced and transparent academic discussion.

The Editorial Board may limit repetitive exchanges or further correspondence that does not contribute substantive new scholarly information.

8. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

Where post-publication discussion reveals factual, methodological, numerical, bibliographical, or ethical concerns, JIRPD will assess the matter according to its Research Misconduct, Correction, and Retraction Policies.

Formal notices must be clearly identified and linked to the original published article. Significant corrections, retractions, or other editorial actions must not be implemented through undisclosed replacement or silent modification of the Version of Record.

9. Fairness, Confidentiality, and Editorial Independence

The Editorial Board evaluates post-publication submissions impartially and on the basis of scholarly merit and verifiable evidence.

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must withdraw from decisions concerning the affected scholarly discussion or allegation.

IJRPD's editorial processes must not be influenced by personal relationships, institutional affiliations, professional seniority, or commercial interests.

Confidential allegations are handled with appropriate safeguards, and individuals concerned are given a reasonable opportunity to respond where appropriate.

Requests for reconsideration may be submitted through the journal's complaints and appeals procedures when material new evidence or significant procedural concerns arise.

10. Documentation, Transparency, and Policy References

JIRPD maintains appropriate editorial records of substantive comments, author responses, investigations, and resulting decisions.

Accepted formal scholarly discussions and corrective notices should remain accessible and be linked to the relevant article. Appropriate publication metadata should be provided where supported by the journal platform.

Relevant ethical guidance includes:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidance
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing