AIJOSH encourages constructive discussion of published research as part of its commitment to scholarly inquiry, transparency, and accountability. This policy explains how readers and authors may discuss, question, or clarify articles published in the journal.

1. Scope and Principles

Post-publication discussion provides an opportunity to examine research findings, interpretations, theoretical perspectives, methods, and source materials within the journal’s disciplinary scope.

Contributions must be evidence-based, relevant, and respectful. Differences in interpretation or analytical approach are a legitimate part of scholarly debate and do not, by themselves, establish error or misconduct.

The journal distinguishes scholarly criticism from concerns requiring formal correction or investigation. Significant errors are addressed under its Corrections and Retractions Policy, while suspected misconduct is assessed under its Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

2. Submitting a Discussion

Readers may submit letters to the editor or short commentaries through the official editorial email address published on the journal’s website.

Submissions should:

• Identify the article by its title, authors, and DOI or publication URL.

• State the principal argument, question, or concern clearly and concisely.

• Support substantive criticism with relevant evidence, sources, or references.

• Explain the contribution to the discussion, particularly where related exchanges have already been published.

• Disclose relevant conflicts of interest and funding, where applicable.

• Provide the contributor’s name, affiliation where applicable, and contact information.

Where the journal provides a Post-Publication Discussion Form, contributors should use it. The absence of a completed form will not prevent initial assessment of a sufficiently clear and substantiated concern.

Scholarly commentaries intended for publication must identify their authors. Anonymous research-integrity reports may be considered separately when supported by specific and verifiable evidence.

Confidential documents or sensitive information should be identified clearly and submitted for editorial assessment rather than included in text intended for publication.

3. Editorial Assessment

Letters and commentaries are assessed for relevance, accuracy, originality, scholarly value, and clarity. External peer review may be sought when a contribution raises complex methodological, theoretical, or evidentiary questions.

The journal may request revisions or decline contributions that:

• Repeat previously addressed points without meaningful new evidence or analysis.

• Misrepresent the article or the sources under discussion.

• Make substantive claims without adequate support.

• Contain personal attacks, discriminatory language, threats, or abusive statements.

• Disclose confidential or identifying information without appropriate authorization.

• Fall outside the scope of scholarly discussion or the journal’s responsibilities.

Editorial decisions are based on the merits of the contribution. Criticism of the journal, its editors, publisher, or previously published work is not, by itself, grounds for rejection.

Where a contribution concerns an editor’s own work or conduct, an independent editor or adviser without a relevant conflict will oversee its assessment.

4. Authors’ Opportunity to Respond

Authors of the original article will normally be invited to respond within a reasonable timeframe specified by the editor. Requests for extensions should be made promptly.

Responses should address the substantive issues raised, provide supporting evidence where appropriate, and maintain a professional tone. They undergo editorial assessment and may be referred for external peer review.

Authors may explain or defend their interpretation, acknowledge limitations, or identify corrections that are needed. A response must not be used to introduce substantial changes to the original article without following the journal’s correction procedures.

An author’s decision not to respond does not automatically prevent publication of a substantiated commentary. Where appropriate, the journal may state that a response was invited but not received.

Authors of the original article do not have a right to veto criticism that meets the journal’s publication standards.

5. Publication and Linking

Accepted commentaries and responses may be published together or separately. Each contribution will identify the article under discussion and be linked to it where technically possible.

Published contributions will be labeled clearly as letters, commentaries, responses, or another appropriate article type. They will not be represented as externally peer-reviewed contributions unless external review has occurred.

Publication does not imply that the journal endorses a contribution’s arguments. The purpose is to facilitate informed scholarly exchange.

Further exchanges may be considered when they provide substantive new evidence or analysis. Editors may close an exchange that has become repetitive or no longer advances the discussion. This does not prevent consideration of new evidence relevant to an article’s accuracy or integrity.

6. Online and External Discussions

If the journal introduces online commenting, it will publish participation and moderation rules. These will explain acceptable conduct, identification requirements, and the circumstances in which comments may be withheld or removed.

Online comments do not replace formal procedures for reporting errors or misconduct.

The journal may also assess sufficiently specific concerns raised on external scholarly platforms or social media. Contributors are encouraged to contact the editorial office directly so that supporting evidence can be examined and responses coordinated.

The location or tone of a report does not, by itself, determine whether the underlying evidence merits examination.

7. Concerns Requiring Editorial Action

When a discussion reveals credible evidence of a significant error or ethical concern, the journal may initiate a separate assessment under its Corrections and Retractions Policy or Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

Publication of a commentary is not a prerequisite for correcting the scholarly record. A discussion or author response does not replace a correction, expression of concern, or retraction where such action is warranted.

Authors and contributors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification or supporting materials. Confidential information, participant identities, and restricted source materials will be handled in accordance with relevant ethical obligations and access conditions.

The journal will distinguish unresolved allegations from established findings in any public communication.

8. Appeals and Policy Review

Contributors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision by identifying a material factual error, procedural concern, or substantial new evidence. Requests will be assessed under the journal’s Appeals and Complaints procedures.

AIJOSH reviews this policy periodically to support fair, accessible, and constructive discussion of published research and maintain consistency with its editorial and publication ethics policies.