POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSION

Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi welcomes scholarly discussion of its published articles, when the discussion is based on evidence. Valid contributions include:

  • questions about the method of a study;
  • alternative interpretations of the findings;
  • results of a replication in another context, medium, platform, or region;
  • comments on the use of the findings in communication practice, such as journalism, public relations, advertising, digital media, or health communication, and in teaching;
  • other substantive observations.

Such contributions are sent to the editorial office.

Choose the Route That Fits Your Purpose

Purpose Where to go
To comment on the method, the analysis, or the interpretation of an article, or to report a replication This page
To correct an error in a published article Correction and Retraction
To report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, or other misconduct Allegations of Misconduct
To submit new research that responds to an article Author Guidelines and Peer Review Process

1. Submitting a Scholarly Comment

Item Requirement
How to send By email to jurnal.mukasi@gmail.com
Subject line Scholarly Comment: [Article Title and DOI or Link]
Language Indonesian or English
Signature The full name, the affiliation, and the email address of the person who sends the comment
Length Concise and focused

Content of the comment

No. Please include
1 The title of the article and its DOI or link.
2 The specific issue that you raise.
3 The reasoning or the evidence that supports the comment.
4 The relevant references.
5 Any competing interests, in accordance with the Conflicts of Interest policy.

Standards of conduct

  • Keep the comment concise and focused.
  • Criticize the work and not the personal characteristics of the authors.
  • Separate clearly the errors that have been proven, the questions that are open, and the differences of interpretation.
  • Do not include confidential information or details that identify participants, such as informants, respondents, or the owners of social media accounts, unless it is really necessary.

2. Editorial Consideration and Author Response

  • The editors assess the relevance, the clarity, the evidence, and the contribution of the comment to the understanding of the article.
  • The authors of the article may be invited to respond. The editors may also consult independent specialists when this is needed.
  • The right of the authors to respond does not give them the power to decide whether a valid criticism is considered.
  • Disagreement alone does not guarantee that a comment will be published.
  • A concern that was raised on another scholarly platform may be examined once it has been brought to the attention of the journal.
  • A person who reports a credible concern about integrity does not need a published comment before the concern is assessed. See Allegations of Misconduct.

3. Publication and Assessment Status

Point Policy
Labeling and linking An approved comment and the reply to it are clearly labeled, and they are linked to the article that they discuss.
Status of review Correspondence that was assessed by the editors is not presented as having passed the standard peer review of the journal.
New research A comment that is submitted as a new research article follows the Peer Review Process.
Publication Publication is not automatic, and no fixed timeline is promised.
Other criticism This procedure does not restrict lawful public criticism of articles, and it does not restrict the reuse of articles under the CC BY 4.0 license outside the journal. See the Licensing page.

Related Policies and Enquiries

Comments and enquiries jurnal.mukasi@gmail.com | jurnal@yp3a.org
Suspected misconduct Allegations of Misconduct
Errors in the published record Correction and Retraction
General standards of conduct Publication Ethics