Post-Publication Discussion Policy

ARCITECH: Journal of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence welcomes evidence-based, respectful discussion of material published in the journal. Post-publication discussion supports clarification, alternative interpretations, critical appraisal, verification of methods, and the continuing development of knowledge.

This policy covers scientific correspondence concerning the content or interpretation of ARCITECH publications. It does not replace the journal’s procedures for allegations of research misconduct, editorial complaints, corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.

Core commitment. Criticism does not need to agree with the original article, but it must address scholarly matters fairly and with sufficient detail for an appropriate response.

The editorial team may decide whether a submission is best handled as private clarification, publishable scholarly correspondence, an independent article subject to peer review, or an integrity concern requiring a separate procedure.

• Identifies a specific ARCITECH article and a question, claim, method, conclusion, or material error that can be examined.
• Provides a clear scientific argument, reproducible calculation, evidence, or appropriate citation where relevant.
• Uses respectful professional language without personal attacks, discrimination, harassment, or unfounded accusations.
• Discloses relevant financial, personal, institutional, or research-related competing interests.
• Respects copyright, research-participant privacy, dataset licensing, and security restrictions.

Critiques that are merely abusive, promotional, repetitive, unrelated, or unsupported may be declined with a brief explanation. A negative scientific conclusion is not, by itself, a reason to reject otherwise constructive criticism.

Submit the discussion request by email to arcitech.journal@iaincurup.ac.id, using the subject line Post-Publication Discussion — [Article DOI or Title]. No public comment account or forum registration is required for email correspondence.

• Full reference to the article: title, author(s), year, volume/issue, DOI, and article URL where available.
• Contributor’s name, affiliation (if any), and correspondence email; explain any exceptional need for identity confidentiality.
• A concise summary of the question, critique, or proposed alternative interpretation, identifying relevant passages, figures, tables, data, or code.
• Evidence, calculations, accessible sources, code or data links, and any necessary ethical or legal qualifications.
• Competing-interest disclosure and material use of AI tools where applicable.

Do not email passwords, private personal records, raw confidential datasets, active exploits, or other sensitive material in an insecure attachment. Contact the editorial office first to agree on a safe method when restricted evidence must be assessed.

The editorial office first checks that the submission is identifiable, relevant, sufficiently documented, and suitable for an academic exchange. It may request clarification, supporting material, or a more concise manuscript before a substantive evaluation.

Receipt of a critique does not establish that the original article is erroneous or that research misconduct occurred.

A handling editor evaluates the submission on relevance, evidence, scientific value, fairness, and consistency with journal policies. Editors with relevant competing interests, including personal involvement in the original research, shall be recused from deciding on the critique.

Where the Editor-in-Chief or another editorial officer is directly implicated, assessment should be allocated to an appropriate independent editor or handled with independent publisher oversight as described in the journal’s complaints and integrity policies.

Editorial decisions may include requesting revisions, seeking specialist advice, declining publication with reasons, or selecting a suitable form of published correspondence. A critical position alone is not a conflict of interest.

Not every comment requires a full research-article peer review. Brief letters may be assessed editorially or sent to an appropriately qualified independent expert depending on their claims and implications.

Submissions containing substantial new empirical results, computational experiments, datasets, or independently reportable research must undergo the applicable external peer-review process before being presented as peer-reviewed scholarly articles. The journal’s Peer Review Policy & Editorial Decision applies where a submission is handled as a research article.

Published correspondence should be identified accurately as a letter, commentary, reply, editorially assessed discussion, or peer-reviewed article, as appropriate. Peer review must never be falsely implied.

For a substantive critique considered for public discussion, the original authors will ordinarily be invited to respond to the main scientific concerns and, where necessary, to provide methodological clarification or supporting evidence.

• The response should focus on evidence and methodological explanation rather than the identity or motives of the critic.
• The editorial team may ask both parties to revise for precision, civility, length, or clarity.
• A reasonable opportunity to reply will be allowed; silence or a declined invitation does not automatically prevent the publication of a well-founded critique.
• The editor may limit repetitive exchanges to keep the scholarly record focused and proportionate.

If the matter reveals a material error or an unresolved integrity risk, the editorial team will follow its formal post-publication correction process rather than relying solely on debate.

Where correspondence is selected for publication, ARCITECH will identify its type and relationship to the original article, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, and provide a link between the original work and the critique or response where technically feasible.

Substantive published items should have stable bibliographic information and a DOI where the journal’s publication workflow supports it. Any correction or retraction notice is issued and labelled under the separate Corrections & Retractions Policy.

Publication of correspondence does not mean ARCITECH adopts every conclusion expressed by a commentator or that the original article has been corrected or retracted. Those are separate editorial determinations.

Scientific exchanges in computer science and AI may address source code, data provenance, training/validation/test separation, algorithmic baselines, performance metrics, statistical uncertainty, computational resources, model documentation, security controls, or reproducibility.

• Claims such as suspected data leakage, benchmark contamination, model evaluation errors, misleading visualizations, or irreproducible results should identify sufficient technical evidence to support assessment.
• Where possible, provide versioned code, environment specifications, parameter settings, or verifiable examples; restricted artifacts may be handled through confidential review.
• Use of generative AI in preparing correspondence must comply with ARCITECH’s AI & Generative AI Policy and must never substitute for author verification or responsibility.
• Critiques involving vulnerabilities must avoid exposing active credentials, private infrastructure details, or information that would create an immediate security or privacy risk.

The journal may seek independent technical evaluation when evidence is complex or contested.

A legitimate scientific disagreement is different from an allegation of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, peer-review misconduct, or unethical data acquisition. Suspected misconduct must be assessed confidentially, impartially, and on the basis of evidence, using the journal’s Publication Ethics and related policies.

The journal may request author explanations, technical records, or institutional input where appropriate. A discussion may lead to no change, a clarification, a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, depending on the evidence.

Anonymous or confidential integrity reports may be considered when they include sufficient verifiable evidence. This does not imply a right to publish anonymous scholarly correspondence without further editorial consideration.

Submissions and communications are handled with due regard to privacy, legitimate confidentiality, and procedural fairness. Reviewer identities and nonpublic editorial records are not disclosed solely because an article is being discussed.

Contributors proposing public correspondence should understand that their names, affiliations, disclosures, and the content of accepted correspondence may be made public as part of the scholarly record. Requests for anonymity in public commentary are considered case by case; concerns requiring confidential reporting may instead follow the complaints or misconduct pathway.

ARCITECH does not permit harassment, threats, defamatory allegations presented as facts without evidence, or the misuse of post-publication discussion to expose protected personal information.

ARCITECH aims to acknowledge identifiable correspondence promptly, normally within five working days. Where substantive assessment requires more time, the editorial office aims to provide an initial update within 30 calendar days after receiving a sufficiently documented request. These are operational targets rather than guaranteed publication or resolution deadlines.

Substantive technical examination, independent review, author responses, or institution-led inquiries may take longer. The editorial office should explain significant delays where practicable and communicate an appropriate next step.

No automatic right to publication or to an unlimited number of response rounds is created by submitting a critique. Any follow-up will be proportionate to its potential scholarly value.

Readers may email credible post-publication questions or concerns without paying a fee to raise the issue. Correspondence considered for publication is subject to the journal’s editorial assessment and any applicable publishing arrangements. If an item is to be processed as a chargeable publishable article, the author must be informed of any applicable charge in advance under ARCITECH’s published Article Processing Charges policy.

Neither fee payment nor institutional or academic status gives preferential treatment. Acceptance, public response, and editorial outcomes are determined independently on scholarly grounds.

Where published, commentary is subject to the applicable copyright and licensing terms. A person materially affected by the handling of a discussion may submit a procedural complaint or appeal under ARCITECH’s Complaints & Appeals Policy.

This policy should be read together with ARCITECH’s Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern Policy, Publication Ethics, Research Data Availability & Reproducibility Policy, Peer Review Policy, AI Policy, and Complaints & Appeals Policy.

Editorial contact: arcitech.journal@iaincurup.ac.id. For publicly verifiable journal contact information, see Contact.

Reference framework: COPE: Handling of Post-Publication Critiques; COPE Core Practices — Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, Version 4.

These references do not imply COPE membership, DOAJ inclusion, or endorsement. ARCITECH may revise this policy publicly as editorial standards or operational arrangements change.