Post-Publication Discussions Policy

Penelitian Gizi dan Makanan (The Journal of Nutrition and Food Research) encourages constructive, evidence-based discussion of articles published in the journal. Post-publication discussion enables readers to question, clarify, or challenge published findings and supports scientific self-correction and the integrity of the scholarly record.

This policy applies to substantive scholarly comments concerning articles published in the journal, including research methods, data, analyses, results, interpretation, reproducibility, citations, limitations, and scientific implications.

Post-publication discussion must contribute meaningfully to scholarly understanding. It must not be used to pursue personal or commercial disputes, make unsupported or defamatory allegations, demand unnecessary citations, or present substantial new research more appropriately submitted as a research article.

Complaints about editorial procedures and decisions are handled under the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy. Suspected research or publication misconduct is handled under the journal's Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

1. Forms of Post-Publication Discussion

The journal facilitates formal post-publication discussion through:

  • Letter to the Editor: a scholarly comment, question, or critique submitted by a reader or other interested party concerning an article published in the journal.

  • Reply to the Letter to the Editor: a response submitted by the author or authors of the article being discussed.

Letters and Replies are scholarly communications but are not classified as Research Articles or Review Articles.

The journal does not impose a fixed time limit for submitting Letters to the Editor, although prompt submission is encouraged. The editorial team may consider the age of the original article, the relevance of the issue, and the availability of supporting evidence when assessing a submission.

2. Submission Requirements

Letters and Replies should be submitted to the journal's Editorial Office through the designated submission channel.

Editorial Office: pgmpersagi@gmail.com

Recommended email subject: Post-Publication Discussion – [Title or DOI of the Article]

A Letter to the Editor should include:

  • The title, DOI or URL, and publication details of the article concerned.

  • A clear and concise description of the issue being raised.

  • Scientific reasoning and supporting evidence.

  • Relevant references.

  • The names, affiliations, and contact details of all authors.

  • A declaration of competing interests.

  • Relevant funding information.

  • Disclosure of substantive use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies, where applicable and required by the journal's policy.

Letters must be original, professionally written, and not under consideration by another journal. They must comply with the journal's policies on authorship, competing interests, plagiarism, confidentiality, copyright, and responsible AI use.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of their statements, evidence, citations, and interpretations.

Replies must identify the Letter being addressed and respond directly to the substantive scientific issues raised.

3. Editorial Assessment and Review

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will assess whether a proposed Letter:

  • Falls within the scope of post-publication discussion.

  • Raises a substantive and scientifically relevant issue.

  • Is supported by appropriate evidence or reasoning.

  • Is clear, objective, and professionally expressed.

  • Complies with the journal's ethical and editorial policies.

  • Should instead be handled as a correction request, complaint, appeal, or allegation of misconduct.

A Letter may be declined when it lacks a substantive scientific argument, merely expresses unsupported disagreement, repeats previously resolved matters without relevant new evidence, contains personal attacks or potentially defamatory statements, discloses confidential information unlawfully, or is more appropriate for another type of submission.

A Letter will not be declined solely because the original authors disagree with it or choose not to respond.

Letters and Replies are normally subject to editorial review. The editor may seek independent external review when specialized methods, statistical analysis, new data, complex technical claims, or other matters require additional expertise.

The assessment will consider scientific accuracy, relevance to the original article, the quality of evidence, fairness, clarity, potential contribution to scientific understanding, and compliance with publication ethics. The editor may request revisions, supporting data, clarification, or removal of inappropriate statements.

The review process does not change the classification of a Letter or Reply into a Research Article.

4. Author Reply and Editorial Independence

When a Letter is considered potentially suitable for publication, the authors of the original article will normally be invited to respond. The Letter, or a sufficiently detailed description of the issues raised, will be provided to them.

The original authors will normally be given 30 calendar days to submit a Reply. The editor may grant a reasonable extension when justified.

This period is an operational target and does not prevent the journal from publishing a scientifically valid Letter if the authors decline to respond or fail to respond after a reasonable reminder.

The Reply must address the scientific issues raised and meet the same standards of accuracy, evidence, professional language, competing-interest disclosure, and publication ethics as the Letter.

The original authors are not required to agree with the Letter. Scientific disagreement may remain after both sides have presented their evidence and reasoning.

The journal will normally limit an exchange to one Letter and one Reply. Further exchanges may be considered when they provide substantial new evidence or are necessary to clarify an important scientific issue. The editor may close a discussion when further correspondence becomes repetitive or no longer contributes meaningfully to the scholarly record.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor without a relevant competing interest is responsible for the final decision. If the original article was authored or handled by the Editor-in-Chief or another member of the editorial team, the discussion must be assigned to an independent editor who was not involved in the original article and has no relevant competing interest.

5. Errors and Research Integrity Concerns

When a Letter identifies a possible error, the journal will assess whether the issue affects the article's accuracy, interpretation, or conclusions.

Where appropriate, the journal may initiate a formal Correction, Expression of Concern, Retraction, Withdrawal, Removal, or Replacement under its applicable policy for corrections and post-publication changes.

A formal Correction is an editorial notice used to amend the scholarly record. It is not replaced by, or treated merely as, a Letter to the Editor. A Letter may still be published when it makes a valuable scholarly contribution, even if the issue also results in a formal correction or another editorial action.

A Letter must not be used as a substitute for reporting suspected research or publication misconduct. Where a discussion raises concerns about fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated data or images, authorship misconduct, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, paper-mill activity, or other serious ethical breaches, the journal may pause the discussion process and handle the matter under its Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct Policy.

Such assessments may remain confidential while an investigation is ongoing. Depending on the outcome, the journal may resume consideration of the Letter, take formal action concerning the article, or close the matter without further action.

6. Publication and Linking

Accepted Letters and Replies will be published as separately identified and citable items. Where technically available, each will receive its own DOI and publication metadata.

Published Letters and Replies will:

  • Identify the article being discussed.

  • Be electronically linked to the original article and, where applicable, to each other.

  • Disclose relevant competing interests and funding.

  • Be made openly accessible under the journal's applicable licensing terms.

The journal will seek to publish the Letter and Reply together where practicable. However, publication of a valid Letter will not be delayed indefinitely because the original authors do not respond or their Reply is not ready.

The landing page of the original article will be updated, where technically possible, to link to related Letters, Replies, Corrections, Expressions of Concern, Retractions, or other relevant post-publication notices.

Accepted discussions will be published as soon as reasonably practicable after the editorial decision. The integrity and accessibility of the original article will be preserved unless a formal post-publication action requires otherwise.

7. External Discussions and Complaints

The journal recognizes that discussion of published articles may occur on scholarly forums, institutional correspondence, social media, or independent post-publication review platforms.

The journal may consider credible and verifiable concerns raised through these channels. However, comments on an external platform do not necessarily constitute formal notification to the journal. Anyone seeking an official assessment or response should report the matter directly to the Editorial Office.

External concerns will be assessed according to the same standards of evidence, fairness, confidentiality, and publication ethics as concerns submitted directly to the journal.

A person directly involved in a post-publication discussion may submit a complaint if they believe that the journal did not follow its stated procedures, an undisclosed competing interest affected the process, or relevant evidence was not considered.

Such complaints will be handled under the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy. Mere disagreement with an editorial or scientific judgment does not, by itself, establish grounds for reconsideration.

8. Policy Review

The journal will periodically review this policy to maintain consistency with developments in scholarly communication, publication ethics, applicable law, COPE guidance, and the journal's related policies.