Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

1. Policy Statement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku (JIP) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record after publication.

The journal recognizes that scientific knowledge develops through ongoing evaluation, critical discussion, replication, and correction.

Publication does not mark the end of editorial responsibility. Credible concerns about published research must be considered appropriately, regardless of when they are identified.

This policy establishes principles and procedures for post-publication discussions, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and exceptional article removal.

The policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the COPE Retraction Guidelines, Version 3, August 2025.

The journal's primary objective is to ensure that readers have access to an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record.

2. Scope of the Policy

This policy applies to all scholarly content published by Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku, including:

• Original research articles.

• Review articles.

• Methodological articles.

• Psychological assessment and psychometric studies.

• Qualitative and mixed-methods research.

• Case studies.

• Other scholarly contributions published by the journal.

Post-publication concerns may involve:

1. Errors in published information.

2. Problems affecting research data.

3. Inaccurate statistical analyses.

4. Misinterpretation of research findings.

5. Research ethics violations.

6. Authorship or attribution concerns.

7. Undisclosed competing interests.

8. Plagiarism or duplicate publication.

9. Problems involving psychological instruments.

10. Peer review manipulation.

11. Breaches of participant confidentiality.

12. Other matters affecting publication integrity.

3. Principles of Post-Publication Accountability

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku applies the following principles when responding to concerns about published articles.

3.1 Accuracy

Published information should be corrected when credible evidence demonstrates a material error.

3.2 Transparency

Substantive editorial actions should be documented and communicated clearly.

3.3 Fairness

Authors and other relevant parties should ordinarily have an appropriate opportunity to respond to concerns.

3.4 Proportionality

Editorial actions should reflect the seriousness and consequences of the identified problem.

3.5 Preservation of the Scholarly Record

Published articles and associated editorial notices should remain appropriately linked and discoverable.

3.6 Timely Consideration

Credible concerns should be evaluated without unnecessary delay, while allowing sufficient time for a fair assessment.

3.7 Independence

Editorial decisions should be protected from inappropriate personal, institutional, financial, or other external influence.

4. Post-Publication Scientific Discussion

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku recognizes the importance of scholarly discussion following publication.

Readers, researchers, and other interested parties may identify questions concerning research methods, interpretations, theoretical assumptions, or the reliability of published findings.

Constructive post-publication discussion contributes to scientific progress and may help identify issues that were not detected during peer review.

Appropriate forms of discussion may include:

• Scholarly correspondence.

• Letters to the editor, where supported by the journal.

• Formal comments on published articles.

• Author responses.

• Methodological critiques.

• Replication findings.

• Other academically appropriate communications.

The availability and publication of specific discussion formats are subject to the journal's adopted editorial procedures.

5. Standards for Post-Publication Commentary

Post-publication commentary should be scholarly, evidence-based, respectful, and relevant to the published research.

Comments should:

1. Clearly identify the article concerned.

2. Describe the issue or scientific question.

3. Provide relevant evidence or reasoning.

4. Distinguish factual concerns from differences of interpretation.

5. Avoid defamatory, discriminatory, or abusive language.

6. Respect participant confidentiality.

7. Disclose relevant competing interests.

The journal may decline to publish commentary that does not meet appropriate scholarly or ethical standards.

Legitimate scientific criticism should not be rejected merely because it challenges previously published findings.

6. Submission of Post-Publication Concerns

Concerns regarding published articles may be submitted through the journal's official editorial communication channels.

A submission should preferably include:

• Article title.

• Author information.

• Publication year.

• DOI or article URL.

• Description of the concern.

• Supporting evidence or references.

• Relevant correspondence or documentation, where available.

Individuals raising concerns should provide sufficient information to enable meaningful assessment.

The journal may consider anonymous reports when they contain credible and verifiable evidence.

The credibility of a concern should be assessed primarily on its substance rather than solely on the identity of the person reporting it.

7. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

Upon receiving a credible post-publication concern, the editorial team should conduct an initial assessment.

The assessment may consider:

1. Whether the concern is specific and supported by evidence.

2. Whether the issue affects the article's scientific reliability.

3. Whether the issue involves an error, disagreement, or potential misconduct.

4. Whether clarification from the authors is necessary.

5. Whether independent expert assessment is appropriate.

6. Whether the matter requires institutional investigation.

7. Whether immediate action is necessary to protect readers or research participants.

Not every complaint requires a formal investigation.

The journal should distinguish between ordinary scholarly disagreement and concerns that materially affect publication integrity.

8. Author Notification and Right to Respond

Where appropriate, authors should be informed of substantive concerns involving their published work.

Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to provide clarification, supporting documentation, or a response.

The editorial team may request:

• Original or supporting research data, where ethically and legally permissible.

• Statistical analysis documentation.

• Research protocols.

• Ethics approval information.

• Instrument documentation.

• Relevant correspondence.

• Explanations of reported findings.

The journal should consider the available evidence fairly.

An author's disagreement with a proposed editorial action does not automatically prevent the journal from taking an action necessary to protect the scholarly record.

9. Corrections to Published Articles

A correction may be appropriate when a published article contains an error that should be formally amended but the article's principal findings and conclusions remain sufficiently reliable.

Examples may include:

• Incorrect numerical values.

• Errors in tables or figures.

• Mistakes in statistical reporting.

• Incorrect author affiliations.

• Material omissions in acknowledgments.

• Incorrect descriptions of research instruments.

• Errors in methodological information.

• Inaccurate references or attribution.

• Other substantive errors that can be corrected without invalidating the article.

The editorial team should assess whether the proposed correction adequately resolves the issue.

Corrections should not be used to conceal fundamental problems that render the article unreliable.

10. Correction Notices

When a formal correction is warranted, the journal should publish an appropriately identified correction notice.

The notice should ordinarily include:

1. A clear title identifying it as a correction.

2. A reference to the original article.

3. The nature of the error.

4. The corrected information.

5. An explanation of the change, where appropriate.

6. The publication date of the correction.

7. A persistent link to the original article.

Where an article file is updated, the journal should make the change transparent and maintain appropriate version information.

The correction notice should be accessible to readers and linked to the affected publication.

11. Minor Errors and Editorial Amendments

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect scholarly meaning may not require a formal correction notice.

The journal should distinguish between:

• Minor production errors.

• Substantive errors requiring formal correction.

• Errors that materially undermine the reliability of the article.

Substantive changes should not be made silently.

Where a correction affects the interpretation, attribution, or evidentiary basis of a published article, a transparent editorial record should be maintained.

12. Errors in Psychological and Behavioral Research

In psychology and behavioral sciences, errors may involve specialized methodological or analytical issues.

Examples include:

• Incorrect scoring of psychological scales.

• Misreported reliability coefficients.

• Errors in validity analyses.

• Incorrect statistical model specifications.

• Misclassification of participant characteristics.

• Inaccurate descriptions of intervention procedures.

• Errors in qualitative coding or interpretation.

• Inappropriate interpretation of psychological assessment results.

The editorial team should consider whether the error affects only a limited part of the article or undermines its principal findings.

Where necessary, independent methodological or statistical expertise may be sought.

13. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be appropriate when serious questions arise about the reliability or integrity of a published article but the available evidence does not yet support a definitive editorial conclusion.

Circumstances may include:

1. Serious unresolved concerns about research data.

2. Ongoing institutional investigations.

3. Substantial concerns about research ethics.

4. Credible evidence suggesting publication misconduct.

5. Inconclusive or conflicting information about the reliability of findings.

6. Other unresolved matters that readers should be made aware of.

An expression of concern should not be used as a substitute for a correction or retraction when the appropriate action is already clear.

The notice should explain the nature of the concern without making unsupported allegations.

The journal should reassess the expression of concern when additional relevant evidence becomes available.

14. Retraction of Published Articles

Retraction is an editorial mechanism for identifying published material that should not be relied upon because of serious problems affecting its reliability or integrity.

Retraction may be appropriate when the journal has clear evidence of circumstances such as:

• Unreliable findings resulting from major error or misconduct.

• Fabrication or falsification of research data.

• Plagiarism that warrants retraction.

• Redundant or duplicate publication without appropriate justification or disclosure.

• Serious ethical violations that justify retraction.

• Compromised or manipulated peer review.

• Other grounds identified in applicable COPE guidance.

The editorial team must assess the circumstances of each case.

Retraction is not automatically required for every error, allegation, or instance of research misconduct.

The purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly record rather than punish authors.

15. Retraction Procedures

When a possible retraction is considered, the journal should follow a fair and evidence-based procedure.

The process may include:

1. Identification of a serious concern.

2. Preliminary assessment of the evidence.

3. Communication with the authors, where appropriate.

4. Requests for relevant documentation.

5. Independent expert consultation, where necessary.

6. Communication with research institutions or other competent bodies when appropriate.

7. Evaluation of the reliability and integrity of the published work.

8. Determination of the appropriate editorial action.

9. Publication of a transparent notice.

10. Appropriate linking and metadata updates.

The journal may proceed with an editorial decision when sufficient evidence is available, even if all authors do not agree with the outcome.

Where the evidence remains insufficient, the journal should avoid making unsupported conclusions.

16. Retraction Notices

Retraction notices should be clear, accessible, transparent, and appropriately linked to the affected articles.

A retraction notice should ordinarily include:

• The title of the affected article.

• The article's bibliographic information.

• Its DOI or persistent identifier, where available.

• The reason for retraction.

• The party or parties responsible for issuing the retraction.

• Relevant information about author agreement or disagreement, where appropriate.

• The publication date of the notice.

Retraction notices should avoid unnecessary defamatory or speculative language.

The notice should provide sufficient information to explain why the published article should no longer be relied upon.

17. Preservation of Retracted Articles

Retracted articles should ordinarily remain accessible as part of the scholarly record.

The journal should clearly identify the article as retracted.

Appropriate measures may include:

1. Displaying a prominent retraction label on the article landing page.

2. Linking the article to the retraction notice.

3. Linking the retraction notice back to the article.

4. Marking the article PDF clearly as retracted.

5. Updating relevant publication metadata.

6. Maintaining the original publication record.

Retracted articles must not be silently deleted or presented as valid publications without appropriate warning.

The preservation of retracted content supports transparency and helps prevent continued reliance on unreliable findings.

18. Exceptional Article Removal

Complete removal of published content should be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

Such circumstances may include compelling legal requirements, serious privacy violations, or risks to the safety of individuals.

Examples may involve:

• Disclosure of highly sensitive personal information.

• Publication of material that creates a serious and immediate safety risk.

• A binding legal requirement.

• Other exceptional circumstances that justify removal under applicable ethical and legal standards.

Where removal is necessary, the journal should preserve an appropriate public record explaining that material has been removed, unless doing so would itself create legal, privacy, or safety risks.

Removal must not be used merely to conceal an editorial error or publication ethics concern.

19. Authorship Corrections After Publication

Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after publication require careful editorial assessment.

Authors should provide:

1. A clear explanation of the proposed change.

2. Relevant information about individual contributions.

3. Written agreement from all affected authors, where obtainable.

4. Supporting documentation when necessary.

The journal should distinguish between administrative errors and substantive authorship disputes.

Where a dispute cannot be resolved through editorial assessment, the journal may refer the matter to the relevant institution.

Changes to authorship must be documented transparently and consistently with the journal's Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

20. Research Ethics Concerns After Publication

The journal will consider credible allegations that published research did not comply with applicable ethical requirements.

Concerns may involve:

• Missing or misrepresented ethics approval.

• Inadequate informed consent.

• Unauthorized disclosure of participant information.

• Inappropriate recruitment of vulnerable participants.

• Unjustified psychological risk.

• Misuse of confidential research records.

• Other significant violations of research ethics.

The journal may seek clarification from authors, ethics committees, or relevant institutions.

The appropriate editorial response will depend on the evidence, seriousness of the concern, and impact on the published record.

21. Data and Statistical Integrity Concerns

Post-publication concerns may arise regarding research data, statistical analyses, or reported results.

The editorial team may request clarification about:

• Data collection procedures.

• Sample characteristics.

• Statistical assumptions.

• Missing-data treatment.

• Data exclusions.

• Instrument scoring.

• Analytical scripts.

• Reported statistical outputs.

• Consistency between results and conclusions.

Where necessary, independent statistical or methodological assessment may be obtained.

The journal must respect applicable confidentiality, participant consent, and data protection requirements when requesting or evaluating research data.

22. Post-Publication Replication and Scholarly Disagreement

A failure to replicate published findings does not automatically establish misconduct or justify retraction.

Psychological and behavioral findings may vary across populations, contexts, measurement procedures, and research conditions.

The journal should distinguish between:

• Legitimate differences in research findings.

• Methodological limitations.

• Errors affecting published results.

• Evidence demonstrating that findings are unreliable.

• Suspected research misconduct.

Replication studies and scholarly criticism may provide important evidence for evaluating published claims.

Editorial action should reflect the nature and strength of the available evidence.

23. Institutional Investigations

Some concerns require investigation by research institutions, ethics committees, or other competent authorities.

The journal may refer credible allegations to the relevant institution when appropriate.

Institutional investigations may address matters beyond the journal's authority, including research conduct, data provenance, and institutional compliance.

The journal remains responsible for decisions concerning its own published record.

Where sufficient evidence is available, the journal may take appropriate editorial action without waiting indefinitely for the conclusion of an institutional investigation.

24. Author-Initiated Corrections and Retractions

Authors are encouraged to notify the editorial office promptly when they discover significant errors or integrity concerns in their published work.

A request should explain:

1. The affected article.

2. The nature of the problem.

3. Its impact on the findings or conclusions.

4. Relevant supporting evidence.

5. The proposed corrective action.

The journal will evaluate the request and determine the appropriate response.

Voluntary disclosure of an error should be considered in context and should not automatically be treated as evidence of misconduct.

25. Reader-Initiated Concerns

Readers may submit evidence-based concerns about published articles.

The journal should assess credible reports regardless of whether the reporting individual is affiliated with an academic institution.

The journal may request clarification or additional supporting information.

Reports made in good faith should be handled professionally.

Individuals raising concerns should not be subjected to retaliation through the journal's editorial processes.

26. Conflicts of Interest in Post-Publication Decisions

Editors involved in post-publication assessment must disclose relevant competing interests.

An editor with a material conflict should not independently determine the outcome of the affected case.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict, the matter should be assigned to an appropriately independent editor or designated authority.

The journal should maintain appropriate separation between institutional interests and editorial decisions concerning corrections or retractions.

27. Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors or other directly affected parties may request reconsideration of an editorial action when they can provide material new evidence or identify a significant procedural error.

Appeals should be submitted through the journal's official communication channels.

An appeal should explain the grounds for reconsideration and provide relevant supporting documentation.

The journal will evaluate appeals in accordance with its Complaints and Appeals Policy.

The submission of an appeal does not automatically suspend a corrective action that is necessary to protect the scholarly record.

28. Communication and Transparency

The journal should communicate post-publication decisions clearly and professionally.

Where appropriate, communications should explain:

• The nature of the concern.

• The evidence considered.

• The editorial action taken.

• The relationship between the action and the reliability of the published article.

• Any further steps that may be necessary.

Confidential information and unsupported allegations should not be disclosed unnecessarily.

The journal should balance transparency with fairness, privacy, and applicable legal obligations.

29. Publication Metadata and Indexing Updates

When a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is published, the journal should update relevant publication records and metadata.

Where applicable, updates may involve:

1. Article landing pages.

2. Article PDF files.

3. DOI metadata.

4. Crossref records.

5. Journal issue pages.

6. Relevant indexing and abstracting services.

7. Internal editorial records.

Notices should have appropriate identifiers and reciprocal links to the affected articles.

Metadata should accurately communicate the current publication status.

30. Responsibilities of Authors, Editors, and Publisher

Authors

Authors must cooperate with reasonable inquiries, provide relevant clarification, and notify the journal of significant errors discovered after publication.

Editors

Editors must assess credible concerns fairly, determine proportionate editorial actions, and maintain the integrity of the published record.

Publisher

The publisher should support the implementation of appropriate corrective actions and protect editorial independence.

Technical or institutional considerations must not be used to conceal serious problems affecting the scholarly record.

31. Policy Review and Continuous Improvement

Jurnal Ilmu Perilaku will periodically review this policy to maintain consistency with current publication ethics guidance and developments in scholarly publishing.

The journal will seek alignment between this policy and its:

• Allegations of Misconduct Policy.

• Complaints and Appeals Policy.

• Authorship and Contributorship Policy.

• Data and Reproducibility Policy.

• Ethical Oversight Policy.

• Intellectual Property Policy.

• Retraction Policy.

• Editorial Independence Policy.

Material revisions should be communicated through the journal website.

References

1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

2. COPE Council. COPE Retraction Guidelines. Version 3, August 2025. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

3. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Guidance and Resources. https://publicationethics.org/guidance

4. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12