Journal of Indonesian Society Empowerment (JISE) firmly believes that publication is not the final step in the scientific process, but rather an invitation for ongoing academic dialogue, constructive debate, and critical evaluation. The integrity of the scholarly record relies on open communication and the ability of the scientific community to scrutinize, replicate, and discuss published findings.

In full alignment with the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), JISE maintains robust mechanisms to facilitate post-publication discussions, manage scholarly critiques, process formal Letters to the Editor, and implement necessary corrections or retractions when substantive scientific flaws or ethical breaches are revealed post-publication.

Post-publication discussion provides a formal framework for readers, researchers, academicians, and community practitioners to engage with published content. The primary objectives are:

• Scientific Discourse: Fostering academic debate on research methodologies, theoretical frameworks, data interpretations, and practical applications in community empowerment.
• Correction of the Literature: Identifying honest errors, methodological flaws, statistical oversights, or unaddressed limitations in published articles.
• Integrity Monitoring: Receiving legitimate alerts regarding potential research misconduct, data fabrication, plagiarism, or unmitigated conflicts of interest that went undetected during pre-publication peer review.

JISE offers structured channels for post-publication critique to ensure transparency and formal archiving:

• Letters to the Editor / Formal Commentaries: Readers may submit a formal Letter to the Editor or Commentary directly addressing a specific article published in JISE.
• Direct Editorial Contact for Integrity Concerns: If a post-publication concern involves confidential integrity allegations—such as research misconduct, image manipulation, plagiarism, or ethical violations—readers should contact the Editor-in-Chief directly via official email rather than submitting a public commentary.
• Monitoring External Post-Publication Platforms: JISE actively monitors reputable third-party post-publication review platforms (such as PubPeer) and official institutional communications. Legitimate, evidence-based comments or queries raised on external platforms regarding JISE articles are evaluated using the same rigorous standards as direct submissions.

To maintain professional academic discourse, all submitted Letters to the Editor or post-publication critiques must adhere to the following standards:

• Evidence-Based and Constructive: Critiques must focus strictly on the scientific, methodological, statistical, or theoretical aspects of the published paper. Submissions must be supported by verifiable data, logical argument, or published literature citations.
• Strict Prohibition of Defamatory Content: Personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, inflammatory rhetoric, defamatory language, or speculative accusations against authors will be rejected immediately without editorial consideration.
• Timeframe for Submission: Submissions offering scientific commentary or theoretical debate should ideally be submitted within 12 to 24 months of the target article's publication date to ensure topical relevance. However, allegations involving data integrity, misconduct, or fatal errors may be raised at any time regardless of publication date.
• Disclosure of Conflicts: Individuals submitting a critique or Letter to the Editor must declare any personal, financial, or academic conflicts of interest regarding the original authors or the subject matter.

JISE enforces a transparent and balanced editorial procedure that guarantees fairness and due process to all parties involved:

• Initial Editorial Assessment: Upon receiving a formal critique or Letter to the Editor, the Editor-in-Chief and Handling Editor evaluate the submission for academic merit, scientific relevance, and compliance with submission standards. Submissions that are unsubstantiated, frivolous, or non-constructive are rejected at this stage.
• Peer Review of Substantive Critiques: If the critique raises complex technical, statistical, or methodological issues, the Handling Editor may send the submission for independent peer review by subject-matter experts.
• Author Right of Reply (Author Response): If the critique is deemed academically valid, the Handling Editor formally forwards the submission to the corresponding author of the original published article. The authors are granted a standard timeframe of 21 to 30 calendar days to submit a written Author Response / Rebuttal.
• Simultaneous Publication: If the original authors provide an acceptable, peer-reviewed Author Response, both the Letter to the Editor and the Author Response will be published simultaneously in the same upcoming issue of JISE. If the original authors fail or decline to respond within the designated timeframe, the Letter to the Editor will be published independently with a formal editorial note stating: "The original authors were invited to respond but declined or did not provide a reply within the allotted timeframe."

Post-publication discussions may reveal errors or breaches that require formal modification of the permanent scientific record:

• Formal Linking via DOI: All published Letters to the Editor, Commentaries, and Author Responses are assigned unique Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). They are permanently cross-linked on the JISE portal and indexing metadata databases to the original target article, ensuring that future readers are immediately aware of the post-publication discussion.
• Issuance of Corrigenda / Errata: If the post-publication discussion identifies minor, honest technical or factual errors that do not invalidate the overall conclusions of the paper, JISE will publish a formal Corrigendum or Erratum linked to the article.
• Expression of Concern or Retraction: If a post-publication critique uncovers unresolvable scientific flaws, invalid methodologies, data fabrication, or severe ethical misconduct that invalidates the article's conclusions, the Editorial Board will initiate formal retraction proceedings in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.