Post Publication Policy

POST-PUBLICATION POLICY

HUMANIKA: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum

HUMANIKA: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum regards the scholarly record as a continuing conversation. Publication does not end scholarly scrutiny. Readers, authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for ensuring that published research remains accurate, transparent, and open to constructive academic discussion.

This policy establishes procedures for post-publication discussion, the handling of research integrity concerns, and the correction, retraction, or exceptional removal of published articles. It is informed by the Core Practices, Retraction Guidelines, and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as applicable scholarly publishing standards.

Guiding Principles
  1. The published version of record must not be altered silently. Substantive changes require a formal notice.
  2. Corrections are intended to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly literature, not to punish authors for honest mistakes.
  3. All parties must be treated fairly and confidentially, and authors must be given an opportunity to respond.
  4. Editorial decisions must be evidence-based, documented, and independent of commercial or institutional pressure.

PART 1. POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSION

1.1. Forms of Discussion

HUMANIKA supports constructive scholarly discussion after publication through the following forms:

  • Comment or Letter to the Editor: A scholarly response to a published article that raises questions, offers constructive criticism, presents additional evidence, or proposes an alternative interpretation.
  • Authors' Reply: A response from the original authors addressing the questions, criticism, or evidence presented in a published comment.
  • Research Integrity Concern: A confidential report concerning possible research misconduct, ethical violations, or serious errors. Such reports are handled separately from public scholarly comments.

1.2. Requirements for Comments

Comments submitted for consideration should meet the following requirements. The editorial team may establish or revise detailed submission limits according to the journal's publication format.

  • Length: Normally no more than 1,000 words and 10 references, with a maximum of one table or figure.
  • Timing: Normally submitted within 12 months of the original article's online publication. The editor may consider later submissions when they are of substantial scholarly importance.
  • Content: Focuses on the article's scholarly content, including concepts, methods, data, or interpretation, rather than personal criticism of the authors.
  • Writing and references: Written in English, using British spelling and APA 7th edition referencing, unless otherwise specified by the journal.
  • Disclosure: Comment authors must declare relevant conflicts of interest, including professional or personal relationships with the original authors.

1.3. Procedure for Post-Publication Comments

  1. Submission: The commenter submits the manuscript through the journal's online submission system or official editorial contact channel, identifying the original article and its DOI, where available.
  2. Acknowledgement: The editorial office acknowledges receipt, normally within seven working days.
  3. Editorial screening: The editor evaluates relevance, scholarly significance, originality, tone, and compliance with the requirements. Out-of-scope, repetitive, defamatory, or personally offensive comments may be declined.
  4. Expert assessment: The editor may seek advice from an independent reviewer when specialist evaluation is necessary.
  5. Invitation to reply: If a comment is considered suitable for further consideration, the original corresponding author may be invited to respond, normally within 30 days.
  6. Editorial assessment: The comment and reply are assessed for scholarly relevance, accuracy, fairness, and clarity.
  7. Decision and publication: Accepted comments and replies may be published together where practicable. If the original authors do not respond within the specified period, the editor may consider publishing the comment with an appropriate note.
  8. Linking and indexing: Published comments and replies should be linked to the original article. Separate DOIs may be assigned where the journal's publishing infrastructure supports them.
  9. Further action: If the exchange reveals a significant error or ethical concern, the editor initiates the relevant procedure under Parts 2 and 3 of this policy.

PART 2. CONCERNS ABOUT RESEARCH INTEGRITY

2.1. Issues That May Be Reported

HUMANIKA considers credible reports concerning possible breaches of research integrity or publication ethics, including but not limited to:

  • Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or inappropriate text recycling.
  • Fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data, images, or research results.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication.
  • Authorship disputes, including ghost, gift, or guest authorship.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding sources.
  • Violations of research ethics involving human participants, including missing ethical approval where required, lack of informed consent, or breaches of confidentiality.
  • Citation manipulation, compromised or fabricated peer review, or suspected paper-mill activity.
  • Undisclosed or inappropriate use of generative artificial intelligence in violation of applicable journal policies.

2.2. Procedure for Handling Integrity Concerns

  1. Reporting: Reports should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief or editorial office and identify the article, its DOI where available, the specific concern, and supporting evidence. Anonymous reports may be considered when sufficiently substantiated.
  2. Acknowledgement and confidentiality: The journal normally acknowledges receipt within seven working days and handles the reporter's identity confidentially, subject to applicable legal and procedural requirements.
  3. Preliminary assessment: The editor assesses whether the concern is credible and falls within the journal's responsibility. The journal may check text similarity, compare published materials, or consult an independent expert.
  4. Contacting the authors: Where a concern is credible, the corresponding author and, where appropriate, the other authors are contacted and invited to provide an explanation and supporting documentation, normally within 30 days.
  5. Evaluation of the response: If the explanation is satisfactory, the case may be closed. If an honest error is identified, the editor considers a correction. If the explanation is inadequate or no response is received, further action may be necessary.
  6. Referral to institutions: Suspected serious misconduct may be referred to the authors' institution, research integrity office, or relevant funding organisation for investigation. The journal may cooperate with these investigations but does not replace the formal investigative role of the responsible institution.
  7. Interim measures: When serious concerns remain unresolved, the journal may issue an Expression of Concern to alert readers while the matter is being assessed.
  8. Editorial decision: Based on the available evidence and relevant investigation findings, the editor determines whether no action, a correction, a retraction, or, in exceptional circumstances, removal is warranted.
  9. Communication and records: Relevant parties are informed of the outcome as appropriate. The journal maintains confidential records of the report, evidence, correspondence, and decision.

PART 3. CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES

The published version of record is the authoritative publication record. HUMANIKA does not silently alter published articles. Substantive changes that affect the content, interpretation, attribution, or citation of an article must be documented through an appropriate formal notice. Notices should be linked to the original article and made discoverable to readers.

3.1. Erratum: Publisher's Correction

An erratum may be issued when a significant error is introduced by the journal during copyediting, typesetting, production, or publication. Examples include incorrect author names, affiliations, figures, tables, or publication metadata.

The journal will publish a notice describing the error and the correction. The article file or metadata may be updated as necessary, with a clear record of the change.

3.2. Corrigendum: Author's Correction

A corrigendum may be issued when an author identifies a significant error that affects the scholarly record but does not invalidate the article's principal findings or conclusions. Examples include an incorrect data value, table, figure, reference, funding disclosure, conflict of interest statement, or author affiliation.

Minor typographical, spelling, punctuation, or formatting errors that do not affect comprehension, interpretation, or citation will not normally require a formal correction. If an error invalidates the principal findings, the editor will consider whether retraction is necessary.

3.3. Changes to Authorship

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after publication must include a clear justification and written agreement from all authors, including any author proposed for removal. Information about individual contributions may be requested to support the decision. If approved, the change will be documented through a corrigendum or another appropriate formal notice.

The journal does not independently adjudicate unresolved disputes about authorship. Such disputes may be referred to the relevant institution. Authorship records will not be changed while a material dispute remains unresolved. Requests to update an author's name for personal reasons will be handled respectfully and with appropriate regard for privacy and metadata accuracy.

3.4. Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious doubts arise regarding an article's reliability or integrity, but the available evidence is inconclusive, an investigation remains ongoing, or the relevant institution is unable or unwilling to investigate promptly.

The notice will describe the concern without reaching premature conclusions. When the matter is resolved, the notice may be followed by a correction, retraction, or an update explaining that the concern has been resolved.

3.5. Retraction

Retraction may be considered when reliable evidence establishes that an article's findings are unreliable or that serious publication misconduct has occurred. Grounds may include:

  • Major errors, data fabrication, or falsification that undermine the findings.
  • Plagiarism or substantial redundant publication.
  • Unethical research or unauthorised use of data.
  • Compromised peer review that materially affects the validity of publication.
  • Failure to disclose a major conflict of interest that materially affected the editorial decision.

Authors may request retraction, or the editor may initiate the process. The final decision rests with the authorised editorial decision-maker after an appropriate assessment of the evidence and the authors' response. Author agreement is desirable but is not required when the evidence justifies retraction.

A retracted article should remain accessible where practicable, clearly marked as RETRACTED, with its publication metadata preserved. A retraction notice should explain the reason, identify who initiated the retraction where appropriate, and distinguish honest error from misconduct without making unsupported allegations.

3.6. Removal of Published Content

Removal of a published article is an exceptional measure and may be considered only when continued public access creates serious legal, privacy, or safety risks, such as a court order, clearly unlawful content, infringement of legal rights, or disclosure of identifiable personal information that poses a serious risk.

Where removal is necessary, the journal should preserve an explanatory notice containing the article's title, authorship information, DOI where available, and the reason for removal, to the extent permitted by law.

3.7. Procedure for Correction Requests

  1. Request: The corresponding author, on behalf of all authors, or a reader submits a correction request through the journal's official editorial channel. The request should identify the article title and DOI, the precise location of the error, the incorrect and proposed corrected text or data, and the effect on the findings or conclusions. Author requests should confirm co-author agreement.
  2. Acknowledgement: The editorial office normally acknowledges receipt within seven working days.
  3. Assessment: The editor evaluates the significance of the error and its impact on the findings. Authors, original reviewers, or independent experts may be consulted where necessary.
  4. Preparation of the notice: The correction notice is drafted in clear, factual language, identifies the original article, describes the error, and states the correction. Authors are normally asked to review a proposed corrigendum within 14 days.
  5. Publication: Once approved, the notice is published online. The corrected article may be updated with a visible statement describing the correction and its date.
  6. Linking and metadata: The notice and the original article should be linked in both directions. Where supported, metadata and status information are updated with Crossref and relevant indexing services.
  7. Issue inclusion: The notice may be included in a subsequent journal issue and listed in its table of contents, where applicable.
  8. Closure: The parties are informed of the decision. Straightforward correction cases should normally be resolved promptly; cases requiring external investigations may take longer.

3.8. Model Wording for Publication Notices

Corrigendum

Correction to: [Authors] ([Year]). [Article Title]. HUMANIKA: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum, [Volume] ([Issue]), [Pages]. [DOI]. In the original article, [description of the error]. The correct information is: [corrected text or data]. This correction [does not affect / affects] the findings or conclusions of the article. The authors regret the error.

Expression of Concern

The editors of HUMANIKA: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum are issuing this Expression of Concern regarding [article citation and DOI] because [brief description of the concern]. [An investigation is ongoing / The relevant institution has been contacted]. Readers are advised to interpret the article with caution until further notice.

Retraction

The following article has been retracted at the request of [the authors / the editors]: [full article citation and DOI]. Following [an investigation / an assessment of the available evidence], the article is being retracted because [reason]. The authors [agree/do not agree/have not responded] to the retraction.

PART 4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

4.1. Authors

  • Notify the journal promptly when a significant error is identified in their published work.
  • Cooperate with editorial assessments and provide relevant supporting data or documentation when reasonably requested.
  • Ensure that correction requests are agreed upon by all authors where applicable.
  • Respond to post-publication concerns honestly and in a timely manner.

4.2. Readers and Reviewers

  • Raise concerns responsibly and provide relevant evidence wherever possible.
  • Use the journal's official reporting channels rather than personal attacks or unsupported public allegations.
  • Contribute to scholarly discussion through constructive, evidence-based comments.

4.3. Editors

  • Handle reports and correction requests fairly, promptly, and confidentially.
  • Provide authors with an appropriate opportunity to respond.
  • Document the evidence, reasoning, and outcome of editorial decisions.
  • Follow relevant publication ethics guidance and seek independent advice when necessary.
  • Ensure that commercial, personal, or institutional interests do not improperly influence decisions.

4.4. Publisher

  • Support the integrity and long-term preservation of the scholarly record.
  • Ensure that formal notices are appropriately linked to the relevant articles.
  • Update publication metadata and notify relevant indexing services where applicable and technically supported.
  • Support editorial independence in the handling of post-publication matters.

CONTACT AND REPORTING

Comments, correction requests, and research integrity concerns should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief of HUMANIKA: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum through the journal's official website or editorial contact channel. Reports should identify the article title, DOI where available, and the nature of the concern. The journal will assess each report in accordance with this policy and applicable publication ethics standards.

REFERENCES AND ETHICAL GUIDELINES

HUMANIKA: Kajian Ilmiah Mata Kuliah Umum