Commentaries, Critiques & Author Responses Policy

Post-publication contributions may address:

• study design;
• statistical analysis;
• interpretation of findings;
• clinical implications;
• methodological limitations;
• reporting quality;
• ethical issues;
• data interpretation;
• reproducibility;
• relevant omitted evidence;
• conceptual disagreements; or
• other substantive scholarly issues.

Appropriate submissions may:

• identify methodological concerns;
• question an interpretation;
• provide an alternative analysis;
• highlight relevant literature;
• clarify a clinical or scientific issue;
• identify a possible reporting error;
• discuss generalisability;
• raise reproducibility concerns;
• comment on implications for policy or practice; or
• extend the scholarly discussion arising from the article.

Assertions should be supported by evidence or clearly identified as reasoned scholarly opinion.

Examples include:

• personal attacks;
• abusive or discriminatory language;
• defamatory assertions unsupported by evidence;
• repeated allegations already assessed without new evidence;
• commercial promotion;
• political advocacy unrelated to the scholarly issue;
• irrelevant correspondence;
• material that breaches participant confidentiality;
• plagiarised content;
• fabricated references or evidence;
• threatening communication; or
• material whose principal purpose is harassment rather than scholarly critique.

The journal may provide the authors with:

• the substantive critique;
• a reasonable response period;
• guidance concerning scope and tone; and
• an opportunity to provide clarification, correction, rebuttal, or agreement.

Authors are not required to agree with the critique.

Failure of the original authors to respond does not necessarily prevent publication of a scientifically appropriate critique.

Coordinated publication may help readers evaluate:

• the original concern;
• the authors' explanation;
• areas of agreement;
• remaining disagreement; and
• any corrective action taken by the journal.

Where a response requires additional time, the critique may still be published where delay would not be justified.

External review may be appropriate where the submission contains:

• substantive methodological criticism;
• new statistical analysis;
• new empirical data;
• complex clinical claims;
• technical allegations concerning reliability;
• specialist scientific arguments; or
• other claims requiring independent expertise.

Short clarifications or straightforward scholarly correspondence may be assessed editorially without full external peer review where appropriate.

The final decision remains with the authorised editor.

Relevant relationships may include:

• academic competition;
• recent collaboration;
• personal disputes;
• financial interests;
• commercial relationships;
• institutional interests;
• litigation;
• professional rivalry; or
• other circumstances capable of affecting impartiality.

The existence of a competing interest does not automatically prohibit publication, but it may require disclosure or additional editorial safeguards.

Independent handling may be required where the editor:

• authored the original article;
• authored the critique;
• is a close collaborator of either party;
• has a significant personal or financial interest;
• was directly involved in the disputed research; or
• has another material conflict affecting impartiality.

Examples of ordinary scientific disagreement may include:

• different interpretation of results;
• different statistical preferences;
• alternative theoretical frameworks;
• different assessments of clinical importance;
• disagreement concerning external validity;
• failure to replicate findings; or
• reasonable differences in methodological judgement.

Such disagreement may justify commentary or critique but does not, without further evidence, establish fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other misconduct.

Examples may include evidence suggesting:

• fabricated data;
• falsification;
• image manipulation;
• plagiarism;
• duplicate publication;
• fabricated ethics approval;
• peer-review manipulation;
• serious undisclosed competing interests; or
• another material integrity problem.

In such cases, publication of correspondence does not substitute for appropriate investigation under JPMHR's Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement.

Where a critique establishes a genuine error, JPMHR may determine that the appropriate response is:

• a correction;
• an addendum;
• an Expression of Concern;
• retraction;
• publication of scholarly correspondence; or
• a combination of these actions.

Editorial action should reflect the effect of the issue on the reliability and interpretation of the original publication.

Where relevant, a critique should provide:

• specific article citations;
• page, table, figure, or section references;
• reproducible calculations;
• supporting literature;
• data or code where appropriate and lawful;
• clear identification of alleged errors; and
• distinction between fact, inference, and opinion.

Where a commentary contains:

• new participant data;
• new experiments;
• new surveys;
• substantial new statistical analyses;
• new clinical observations; or
• another significant independent dataset,

JPMHR may require compliance with research-article requirements, including ethics approval, consent, data transparency, reporting standards, and peer review.

Authors should:

• cite the article being discussed;
• cite relevant supporting evidence;
• avoid fabricated or irrelevant references;
• avoid unnecessary self-citation;
• avoid coercive citation practices; and
• verify all references before submission.

Contributions must not improperly disclose:

• identifiable patient information;
• confidential research-participant information;
• reviewer identities obtained improperly;
• confidential editorial correspondence;
• protected institutional information;
• restricted datasets; or
• other information whose disclosure would violate legitimate obligations.

Contributors should distinguish:

• demonstrated error;
• methodological criticism;
• reasonable inference;
• unresolved concern;
• allegation; and
• established misconduct.

JPMHR may edit or decline statements that present unresolved allegations as established facts without adequate basis.

Editing may address:

• repetition;
• irrelevant material;
• personal attacks;
• unsupported allegations;
• confidential information;
• ambiguous claims;
• formatting;
• references; and
• language clarity.

Material substantive changes should ordinarily be communicated to the contributor before publication.

Where technically possible, JPMHR should:

• cite and link the original article from the commentary;
• link the commentary from the original article;
• link an author response to the critique;
• maintain DOI and citation information; and
• preserve the relationship between subsequent correction notices and the discussion.

Authors retain copyright in their published contribution, and JPMHR scholarly content is ordinarily published under CC BY 4.0, subject to third-party rights and applicable article-level notices.

JPMHR's general APC framework does not create a right to publication and payment must not influence:

• whether a critique is accepted;
• whether an author response is published;
• how a scientific dispute is resolved; or
• whether corrective action is required.

Where a different fee arrangement applies to a specific article type, it should be communicated before a payment obligation arises.

Additional exchanges may be declined where they:

• repeat arguments already published;
• provide no material new evidence;
• become predominantly personal;
• create disproportionate repetition;
• attempt to relitigate an integrity determination without new evidence; or
• no longer contribute meaningful scholarly value.

Material new evidence may justify reopening a matter.

Mere disagreement with an editorial judgement does not guarantee a new review, but concerns involving:

• conflict of interest;
• procedural unfairness;
• material factual misunderstanding;
• discriminatory treatment; or
• other substantial irregularity

may be considered under the Complaints & Appeals Policy.

• COPE Guidance and Resources
• ICMJE Recommendations
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Reference to external guidance does not imply membership, accreditation, certification, or endorsement unless independently established.