Post-Publication Discussion

Al-battar: Jurnal Pamungkas Hukum encourages open, constructive, and evidence-based scholarly discussion after the publication of an article. Post-publication discussion is an important mechanism for evaluating research findings, clarifying arguments, identifying errors, and promoting the continuous development of legal scholarship.

Readers, researchers, and other interested parties may submit comments, criticisms, questions, or relevant evidence concerning published articles through the journal’s official communication channels. Submissions must be academically relevant, supported by appropriate reasoning or evidence, and respectful of scholarly standards. Personal attacks, defamatory statements, discriminatory content, and unsupported allegations will not be accepted.

The editorial team assesses each submission for its academic merit, relevance, accuracy, and compliance with publication ethics. Where appropriate, the journal may consider publishing the submission as a letter to the editor, scholarly commentary, or another suitable form of post-publication discussion. The authors of the original article will ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive criticism.

If a post-publication discussion reveals credible evidence of a factual error, unreliable findings, or possible research misconduct, the journal will initiate the relevant editorial procedure. Depending on the circumstances, this may lead to further investigation, a correction, an Expression of Concern, or retraction.

The journal is committed to ensuring that post-publication discussion contributes to academic progress while preserving fairness, editorial independence, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

Procedure for Post-Publication Discussion

Step 1. Submission of Comments

A reader or researcher submits a comment, criticism, or relevant evidence concerning a published article.

↓

Step 2. Editorial Evaluation

The editor assesses the submission’s academic relevance, evidence, and ethical compliance.

↓

Step 3. Author’s Right to Respond

The original author is given an opportunity to respond to substantive comments or criticism.

↓

Step 4. Editorial Decision

The editor decides whether the comment and response merit publication, subject to further review where necessary.

↓

Step 5. Further Action, if Required

Any credible indication of error or misconduct is referred to the appropriate correction or investigation procedure.