Post-Publication Discussion
ESCALATE | EDITORIAL POLICIES
Post-Publication
Discussion.
Advancing scholarly dialogue, critical evaluation, academic transparency, and the continuous improvement of published research through constructive post-publication discussion and responsible editorial oversight.
SCHOLARLY DIALOGUE RESEARCH INTEGRITY EDITORIAL TRANSPARENCY
05
DISCUSSION FORMATS
04
EDITORIAL OUTCOMES
COPE
ETHICAL GUIDANCE
Escalate: Economics and Business Journal recognizes that scholarly evaluation continues beyond the initial peer-review and publication process. Post-publication discussion is an essential component of academic communication, enabling researchers, readers, and the wider scholarly community to critically examine, clarify, challenge, and develop published research findings.
The journal encourages responsible, evidence-based, and constructive scholarly dialogue concerning articles published in economics, management, business, accounting, finance, and related disciplines. Such dialogue contributes to scientific progress, strengthens academic accountability, and supports the reliability of the scholarly record.
This policy draws upon guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and internationally recognized principles of editorial transparency, post-publication evaluation, and research integrity.
ⓘ Fundamental Principle
Publication does not mark the end of scholarly evaluation. Legitimate academic criticism, alternative interpretations, methodological questions, and evidence-based concerns should be considered fairly. The journal supports constructive discussion while ensuring that original authors have an appropriate opportunity to respond to substantive criticism.
EXPLORE THIS POLICY
01 / SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION
Purpose and Scope
Supporting constructive academic debate after research publication.
Post-publication discussion refers to scholarly evaluation, criticism, clarification, commentary, and dialogue concerning research articles that have already been published. Such discussion enables the academic community to critically examine published evidence, research methodologies, theoretical arguments, analytical interpretations, and scholarly conclusions.
Escalate welcomes constructive contributions from researchers, academics, practitioners, readers, and other interested parties who wish to engage with the scholarly content of its published articles.
Post-publication discussion should contribute to a better understanding of the research, identify areas requiring clarification, present alternative interpretations, address methodological limitations, or raise credible concerns regarding the accuracy and integrity of the published work.
This policy applies to articles published by Escalate: Economics and Business Journal and complements the journal's policies on publication ethics, research misconduct, conflict of interest, authorship, corrections, and retractions.
02 / SCHOLARLY PARTICIPATION
Forms of Post-Publication Discussion
Recognized mechanisms for constructive scholarly exchange.
DISCUSSION FORMAT / 01
Letters to the Editor
Readers and researchers may submit formal letters presenting scholarly comments, constructive criticism, methodological questions, or requests for clarification regarding specific articles published by the journal. Letters should identify the article under discussion and clearly explain the scholarly significance of the issues raised.
DISCUSSION FORMAT / 02
Author Responses and Clarifications
Authors of previously published articles may be invited to respond to substantive scholarly criticism, clarify research procedures, explain analytical decisions, or address alternative interpretations. Responses should be academically grounded, respectful, and supported by relevant evidence.
DISCUSSION FORMAT / 03
Scholarly Commentaries
Scholarly commentaries may provide critical interpretations, theoretical reflections, alternative perspectives, or further discussion of findings relevant to published research. Commentaries should contribute substantively to academic understanding and remain closely connected to the original article.
DISCUSSION FORMAT / 04
Corrections and Technical Clarifications
Authors, readers, and researchers may report factual, numerical, statistical, methodological, bibliographic, or other technical errors identified after publication. Where appropriate, the Editorial Team may request additional explanation or initiate a formal correction process.
DISCUSSION FORMAT / 05
Research Integrity Concerns
Concerns regarding plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, manipulated analyses, authorship irregularities, undisclosed competing interests, unethical research practices, or other serious publication issues may be submitted to the Editorial Office for confidential and appropriate assessment.
Editorial Consideration
The submission of a Letter to the Editor, commentary, or author response does not automatically guarantee publication. The Editorial Team retains responsibility for determining the academic relevance, suitability, and appropriate treatment of submitted correspondence. Formal scholarly contributions may undergo editorial assessment or peer review where necessary.
03 / AREAS OF SCHOLARLY CRITICISM
Subjects of Post-Publication Discussion
Research issues that may warrant constructive discussion or further editorial consideration.
A. Scientific and Methodological Concerns
Discussion may address the validity, interpretation, reproducibility, or analytical rigor of published research.
✓ Inappropriate statistical tests or econometric model specifications.
✓ Sampling limitations, selection bias, or measurement problems.
✓ Unsupported causal claims or interpretations exceeding the available evidence.
✓ Inconsistencies between reported methods, results, and conclusions.
✓ Reproducibility concerns involving datasets, analytical procedures, or reported calculations.
✓ Alternative theoretical interpretations or conflicting empirical evidence.
B. Technical Errors and Reporting Omissions
Post-publication comments may identify inaccuracies or omissions that affect the interpretation, presentation, or accessibility of research findings.
✓ Numerical errors in tables, figures, equations, or statistical results.
✓ Incorrect or incomplete references and citations.
✓ Inconsistent terminology or misleading figure descriptions.
✓ Incomplete methodological explanations.
✓ Missing or inaccurate data availability information.
C. Research Integrity and Publication Ethics
Credible concerns relating to ethical misconduct or the integrity of published research may require further assessment under the journal's publication ethics procedures.
✓ Plagiarism, inappropriate text reuse, or unattributed intellectual contributions.
✓ Data fabrication, falsification, or material manipulation.
✓ Authorship disputes or inaccurate contributor declarations.
✓ Undisclosed financial or non-financial competing interests.
✓ Research ethics approval or participant consent concerns.
✓ Other credible irregularities affecting the reliability of the scholarly record.
Important Distinction
A disagreement over research interpretation, theoretical perspective, or methodological preference does not automatically demonstrate misconduct. Allegations of ethical wrongdoing require careful assessment of relevant evidence and should not be presented as established findings before an appropriate determination has been made.
04 / SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Guidelines for Submitting Comments and Critiques
Requirements for evidence-based and constructive post-publication correspondence.
Readers and researchers who wish to submit post-publication comments, scholarly critiques, requests for clarification, or concerns about published articles should communicate directly with the journal's Editorial Office.
Recommended Submission Information
01. Full name, institutional affiliation, and contact information of the correspondent, where appropriate.
02. Title of the published article, author names, publication year, DOI, or article URL.
03. Clear identification of the research findings, methods, interpretations, or ethical concerns under discussion.
04. A concise explanation of the issue and its academic significance.
05. Relevant supporting evidence, scholarly references, analyses, or documentation, where available.
06. Disclosure of any competing interests relevant to the submitted commentary or criticism.
Submissions should be written in professional academic language and should focus on the content of the research rather than personal characteristics, reputational claims, or unsupported accusations. The Editorial Team may request clarification, additional evidence, or revisions before further consideration.
05 / EDITORIAL ASSESSMENT
Post-Publication Review Process
A fair and transparent editorial approach to assessing scholarly criticism.
01
Receipt and Initial Screening
The Editorial Team receives and evaluates the submitted commentary or concern to determine its relevance, specificity, scholarly significance, and compliance with the journal's standards of academic communication.
02
Editorial Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor assesses the academic merit and supporting evidence. Where appropriate, additional independent expert evaluation or peer review may be requested.
03
Author Notification and Opportunity to Respond
Where substantive scholarly criticism concerns a published article, the original authors may be invited to provide clarification, supporting evidence, or a formal response. A reasonable response period will be determined in light of the complexity of the issues raised.
04
Evaluation of Comments and Responses
The Editorial Team considers the original criticism, author response, available evidence, and any relevant expert recommendations. Additional clarification may be requested where necessary to assess the scientific significance of the discussion.
05
Editorial Decision
The Editorial Team determines whether the discussion warrants publication as correspondence, further scholarly review, a clarification, a correction, referral to a research integrity procedure, or another appropriate editorial response.
06
Publication or Follow-Up Action
Where appropriate, accepted scholarly correspondence or formal editorial notices may be published and linked to the original article. Issues involving significant research integrity concerns will be handled under the journal's relevant publication ethics policies.
Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions regarding post-publication correspondence must be based on scholarly merit, the relevance and quality of evidence, procedural fairness, and the public interest in maintaining an accurate academic record. Acceptance or rejection of a commentary must not be determined by personal relationships, institutional pressure, commercial considerations, or disagreement with legitimate scholarly viewpoints.
06 / ACADEMIC CONDUCT
Standards for Constructive Scholarly Discussion
Promoting rigorous, respectful, and evidence-based academic exchange.
Acceptable Scholarly Conduct
✓ Constructive criticism based on verifiable scholarly evidence.
✓ Professional, objective, and respectful academic language.
✓ Transparent presentation of analytical procedures and references.
✓ Recognition of reasonable differences in methodological or theoretical interpretation.
✓ Willingness to consider alternative evidence and author explanations.
Unacceptable Conduct
✕ Personal attacks, harassment, intimidation, or discriminatory language.
✕ Defamatory assertions or unsupported allegations presented as established facts.
✕ Deliberately misleading statements, fabricated evidence, or manipulated citations.
✕ Disclosure of confidential personal information or restricted research materials without authorization.
✕ Correspondence unrelated to the scholarly content or integrity of the article.
07 / POST-PUBLICATION ACTIONS
Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions
Appropriate actions for maintaining the reliability and integrity of the scholarly record.
When post-publication discussion identifies significant inaccuracies, unresolved reliability concerns, or credible evidence of research misconduct, Escalate may initiate formal editorial procedures in accordance with its Correction and Retraction Policy and applicable publication ethics guidance.
01. Corrections and Clarifications
Corrections may be issued when identifiable factual, methodological, numerical, or reporting errors require amendment but do not undermine the overall reliability of the article's principal findings and conclusions. Corrections should clearly identify the affected material and explain the changes made.
02. Expressions of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be published when credible and significant questions regarding a published article remain unresolved, where available evidence is inconclusive, or where an ongoing investigation raises concerns that readers should be made aware of.
03. Retractions
Retraction may be necessary when serious methodological errors, unreliable findings, research misconduct, or significant ethical violations undermine the credibility of the article to the extent that its findings or conclusions should no longer be relied upon. Retractions must be clearly identified and accompanied by a transparent explanatory notice.
04. Scholarly Clarifications or No Corrective Action
Where post-publication concerns are satisfactorily explained, involve legitimate scholarly disagreement, or do not materially affect research reliability, the Editorial Team may facilitate clarification, publish suitable correspondence, or conclude that no formal correction is required.
Preserving the Scholarly Record
Formal post-publication notices should be transparently presented and linked to the relevant published article whenever applicable. The purpose of correction and retraction is to maintain the accuracy and reliability of scholarly literature, rather than to punish authors. Articles subject to retraction should ordinarily remain identifiable within the journal's archive with their retracted status clearly indicated.
08 / RESEARCH INTEGRITY
Handling Research Misconduct Allegations
Separating scholarly criticism from formal research integrity investigations.
Post-publication discussion may reveal concerns involving plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, or other serious research and publication irregularities.
Where such concerns arise, the Editorial Team will assess the available evidence and may initiate a separate research integrity procedure under the journal's applicable publication ethics policies.
The journal may request explanations from the corresponding author, seek independent expert evaluation, or cooperate with relevant research institutions when a formal investigation is warranted.
All allegations must be handled fairly, with appropriate confidentiality and attention to potential conflicts of interest. An allegation does not, by itself, establish misconduct, and directly affected individuals should receive a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive concerns.
Research Integrity and Institutional Cooperation
Research institutions are generally responsible for formally investigating allegations concerning the conduct of affiliated researchers. The journal is responsible for assessing matters affecting its publication process and scholarly content and for implementing appropriate editorial measures to safeguard the published record.
09 / SHARED ACCOUNTABILITY
Responsibilities of the Scholarly Community
Authors, readers, editors, and reviewers share responsibility for scholarly integrity.
Responsibilities of Authors
Authors should respond constructively to legitimate scholarly criticism, provide reasonable clarification or supporting evidence when requested, acknowledge significant errors, and cooperate with appropriate editorial or institutional procedures.
Responsibilities of Readers and Researchers
Readers and researchers are encouraged to raise scholarly concerns responsibly, distinguish evidence from interpretation, respect academic disagreement, and provide relevant documentation where available.
Responsibilities of the Editorial Team
The Editorial Team is responsible for evaluating relevant correspondence fairly, facilitating appropriate author responses, managing conflicts of interest, considering independent expert input when necessary, and taking proportionate editorial action where warranted.
Responsibilities of the Publisher
The publisher should support editorial independence, the transparent communication of appropriate notices, and the preservation of the scholarly record without improperly influencing scientific or ethical editorial judgments.
10 / EDITORIAL TRANSPARENCY
Transparency, Confidentiality, and Documentation
Post-publication discussions and related editorial decisions should be handled transparently while maintaining appropriate confidentiality concerning unpublished correspondence, personal information, and ongoing research integrity assessments.
The journal should maintain relevant records of submitted criticisms, author responses, supporting evidence, editorial evaluations, and decisions, with access limited to individuals who require the information for legitimate editorial purposes.
Where scholarly correspondence or editorial notices are published, they should clearly identify the original article under discussion and, where applicable, provide appropriate links, citations, or persistent identifiers to support scholarly transparency.
Substantive criticism should be addressed without unnecessary delay. The duration of an editorial assessment may vary according to the complexity of the issues, the availability of evidence, author responses, independent evaluations, or institutional investigations.
11 / AUTHOR AND READER INFORMATION
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions regarding post-publication scholarly dialogue.
Who may submit post-publication comments?
Authors, researchers, academics, practitioners, readers, and other interested parties may submit relevant scholarly comments or evidence-based concerns concerning articles published by Escalate.
Can authors respond to criticism of their published articles?
Yes. Original authors may be invited to provide clarification or a formal response to substantive scholarly criticism, allowing the academic discussion to consider relevant explanations and supporting evidence.
Will every submitted commentary be published?
No. All submissions are subject to editorial assessment. Publication depends on academic relevance, evidentiary support, appropriate scholarly conduct, and compliance with the journal's editorial standards.
What happens if an error is identified after publication?
The Editorial Team may request clarification and assess whether the error requires a correction or another action. The appropriate response depends on the nature of the error and its effect on the reliability of the research.
Does criticism automatically result in retraction?
No. Academic criticism or disagreement does not automatically justify retraction. Retraction is considered when sufficiently serious problems undermine the reliability or integrity of a published article under the applicable editorial guidelines.
How can I report a concern about a published article?
Concerns may be submitted directly to the Editorial Office at escalate@takaza.id. Include the relevant article title or DOI, a clear explanation of the concern, and supporting evidence where available.
12 / OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
Submit a Post-Publication Comment
Communicate scholarly comments, questions, or research integrity concerns directly to the journal.
OFFICIAL EDITORIAL COMMUNICATION
Escalate: Economics and Business Journal
Scholarly comments, Letters to the Editor, author responses, requests for clarification, and concerns relating to published articles may be submitted through the journal's official editorial email.
EDITORIAL EMAIL
Please include the article title or DOI and describe the relevant scholarly issue. Sensitive information or confidential research data should not be transmitted through unsecured channels without prior coordination.
Related Editorial Policies
Explore related policies governing scholarly integrity, editorial evaluation, and the correction of the academic record.
INTERNATIONAL ETHICAL GUIDANCE
References and Scholarly Publishing Standards
Guidance on responsible scholarly discussion and post-publication editorial actions.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
View International Publishing Principles ↗COPE Retraction Guidelines
COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines, updated August 2025.
View Retraction Guidelines ↗Wiley Publishing Ethics Resources
How to Handle Post-Publication Critiques: Guidance for Editors.
View Editorial Guidance ↗RESPONSIBLE SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION
Advancing Knowledge Through Dialogue
Scientific progress depends on openness to critical evaluation, responsible dialogue, and the correction of errors. Escalate encourages constructive engagement with published research to strengthen academic credibility, transparency, and scholarly understanding.
Escalate: Economics and Business Journal
Post-Publication Discussion Policy
Scholarly Dialogue • Editorial Transparency • Research Integrity
E-ISSN: 3025-4213
Published by Takaza Innovatix Labs Ltd.
Visit Official Journal Website ↗
