POST-PUBLICATION CRITIQUES

Yurispruden allows post-publication criticism to present constructive scholarly exchanges on issues of importance to the reader.

Post-publication criticism is a mechanism for readers to express concerns or to ask for clarification about the content of an article that has already been published. Criticism can be an alternative interpretation of the original content and the original author of the work is given the opportunity to respond in order to facilitate discourse.

Post-publication criticism is carried out through a post-publication discussion mechanism, readers can send criticism via email to the editor, the letter can be in the form of 'comments', 'opinions' or other types of 'correspondence', which are forwarded to the author's proofreading.

Objects of post-publication criticism, include:

  1. Ethical Misconduct The most serious criticism from readers that often triggers COPE's official investigations:
  • Plagiarism & Self-Plagiarism: the discovery of similarities, ideas, or text recycling from previous publications without references.
  • Data or Image Manipulation: Readers (often through tools or platforms such as PubPeer) find anomalies in microscope images, Western Blot photos, or shaded/duplicated statistical data.
  • Authorship Disputes: Readers report the existence of ghost authors, gift authors, or principal researchers whose names are deliberately omitted.
  • Undisclosed Conflict of Interest: the discovery of the author's financial ties to industry sponsors that are not listed in the article.
  • Ethical Issues of Research Subjects: Criticism related to the absence of ethical approval or informed consent.
  1. Scientific & Methodological Flaws Criticism that questions the validity of research findings:
  • Interpretation & Excessive Conclusions: The reader judges the data presented not strong enough to support the extreme conclusions or claims of the author's new findings.
  • Methodology/Statistics Errors: Use of improper statistical tests, p-hacking, too small sample sizes, or variable selection bias.
  • Replicability Issues: Other researchers try to repeat experiments based on the methods in the article but fail to get the same results, or find the written protocol incomplete.
  1. Technical Errors & Omissions Criticism of the accuracy of the manuscript:
  • Numerical / Formula Errors: The presence of incorrect calculations in tables, charts, or mathematical equations.
  • Incomplete Data / Lack of Data Access: The author does not include raw data even though the article claims to use the Open Data
  • Incorrect or Missing Citation: Citations that don't match the original reference.

The journal's involvement in Post-Publication Critique is to:

  • Correcting Science and Data Errors: Allows the academic community to find and correct methodological errors, statistical calculations, or data interpretations that were missed during the initial peer-review process .
  • Facilitating Scientific Debate and Discourse: Providing a constructive formal channel for other researchers to present different points of view, counter-hypotheses, or suggestions for improvement.
  • Improve Transparency and Accountability: Ensure Authors, Editors, and Publishers remain accountable for published articles, as well as prevent the concealment of research flaws.
  • Detecting Ethical Violations (Misconduct): Becomes a second bulwark of defense to find cases such as plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, image manipulation, or hidden conflicts of interest.
  • Guiding Readers and Future Research: Providing context and scientific warnings for other researchers not to use flawed methodologies or cite inaccurate findings in future research.
  • Triggers for Official Corrective Action: It is the basis for journals to take Post-Publication Amendments actions, such as publishing Corrigendum, Expression of Concern, and Retraction if the main findings are found to be invalid.