Post Publication Discussion Policy

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations recognizes that scholarly evaluation continues after publication. Constructive post publication discussion can clarify research findings, identify methodological limitations, examine alternative interpretations, support replication and reproducibility, and contribute to the continuing accuracy of the scholarly record.

The journal welcomes responsible academic discussion concerning published articles when such communication is relevant, evidence-based, professionally expressed, and directed toward the scholarly content of the work. Post publication discussion must not be used for harassment, personal disputes, unsupported accusations, commercial promotion, or other activities unrelated to legitimate scholarly inquiry.

1. Purpose of the Policy

The purpose of this policy is to provide a transparent framework for scholarly comments, critiques, clarifications, author responses, replication-related observations, methodological discussions, and other academic communications concerning articles published in the journal.

Post publication discussion may contribute to:

  • clarification of methods, terminology, assumptions, or conclusions;

  • consideration of alternative scholarly interpretations;

  • identification of factual, analytical, statistical, or methodological errors;

  • examination of replication and reproducibility;

  • discussion of data availability or research transparency;

  • evaluation of new evidence relevant to published findings;

  • consideration of policy, environmental, economic, technological, or societal implications; and

  • appropriate correction or updating of the scholarly record.

2. Scope

This policy applies to substantive communications concerning material published by the Journal of Circular Economy Innovations.

Post publication contributions may include:

  • letters to the editor;

  • scholarly comments;

  • methodological critiques;

  • author responses;

  • requests for clarification;

  • replication or reproducibility observations;

  • comments relating to research data;

  • technical or statistical observations;

  • correction requests; and

  • concerns relating to publication integrity.

The journal determines the appropriate editorial procedure according to the nature and significance of the matter raised.

3. Standards for Scholarly Discussion

Post publication contributions should identify a clear scholarly issue and provide sufficient reasoning, evidence, references, or methodological explanation to support the position presented.

Contributors should distinguish clearly among:

  • verified facts;

  • methodological observations;

  • interpretations;

  • hypotheses;

  • professional opinions; and

  • allegations requiring further investigation.

Academic disagreement is a normal part of scholarly communication. A difference in interpretation, theoretical position, or methodological preference does not by itself establish that an article is erroneous or that research misconduct has occurred.

4. Professional and Respectful Communication

All post publication correspondence must maintain professional academic standards.

Criticism should focus on the research, methodology, analysis, interpretation, evidence, or conclusions rather than the personal characteristics, affiliations, intentions, or reputation of the authors.

The journal may decline or request revision of material containing:

  • personal attacks;

  • discriminatory or abusive language;

  • harassment;

  • threats;

  • unsupported allegations;

  • defamatory statements;

  • confidential personal information;

  • irrelevant accusations; or

  • material unrelated to scholarly evaluation.

Strong academic criticism may be expressed when it is supported by evidence and presented professionally.

5. Submission of a Post Publication Comment

Individuals wishing to comment on a published article should communicate with the journal through the designated editorial contact channel.

A submission should normally provide:

  • the title of the article concerned;

  • the article DOI or other identifying information, where available;

  • a clear explanation of the issue;

  • supporting evidence or references where appropriate;

  • the contributor's name and affiliation;

  • contact information; and

  • a declaration of relevant conflicts of interest.

The editorial office may request additional information before deciding whether the matter warrants publication, clarification, review, or further investigation.

6. Initial Editorial Assessment

Post publication communications are subject to editorial assessment before further action.

The responsible editor may consider whether the communication:

  • addresses a genuine scholarly issue;

  • provides adequate evidence or reasoning;

  • relates directly to the published article;

  • contributes meaningfully to scholarly discussion;

  • is written professionally;

  • raises a potential research-integrity concern;

  • duplicates an issue already addressed; or

  • contains material requiring legal, ethical, or confidentiality consideration.

Submissions that are repetitive, unsupported, promotional, abusive, or unrelated to scholarly discussion may be declined.

7. Author Right of Response

Where a substantive critique, question, or comment is considered appropriate for publication or formal consideration, the original author or corresponding author will normally be given an opportunity to respond.

Authors may use the response to:

  • clarify methodology;

  • explain analytical decisions;

  • provide additional evidence;

  • address criticisms;

  • acknowledge errors or limitations;

  • explain differences in interpretation; or

  • provide relevant contextual information.

Authors do not have the right to prevent publication of legitimate scholarly criticism solely because they disagree with it.

Where authors decline to respond or cannot reasonably be contacted, the journal may proceed according to the nature of the matter.

8. Editorial Independence

Decisions concerning post publication discussion are made independently on the basis of scholarly relevance, evidence, fairness, integrity, and appropriate editorial judgment.

The journal will not suppress legitimate criticism because it may be unfavorable to an author, institution, editor, editorial board member, publisher, or previously published conclusion.

Similarly, unsupported allegations will not be published merely because they challenge an existing article.

9. Peer Review of Post Publication Contributions

Substantive post publication contributions may undergo editorial assessment or external peer review where appropriate.

A brief factual clarification may require editorial review only, whereas a detailed statistical, methodological, economic, technological, environmental, or policy critique may require independent expert assessment.

Where external reviewers are used, the journal's principles concerning confidentiality, independence, expertise, and conflicts of interest apply.

10. Discussion of Circular Economy Research

Post publication discussion may address matters particularly relevant to circular economy scholarship, including:

  • resource efficiency;

  • material-flow analysis;

  • waste reduction and recovery;

  • recycling systems;

  • industrial symbiosis;

  • circular business models;

  • life-cycle assessment;

  • sustainable production and consumption;

  • circular supply chains;

  • product-life extension;

  • environmental indicators;

  • policy and governance;

  • socioeconomic impacts;

  • circular design;

  • digital technologies supporting circularity; and

  • sustainability claims associated with circular-economy interventions.

Contributors should distinguish between measured evidence and broader claims concerning environmental, economic, or social benefits.

Claims that a particular intervention is sustainable, circular, carbon-reducing, resource-efficient, or environmentally beneficial should be evaluated in relation to the evidence and methodology presented in the published study.

11. Methodological Concerns

Readers may raise questions relating to research design, sampling, statistical procedures, modeling, data interpretation, measurement methods, life-cycle boundaries, assumptions, computational procedures, or other methodological matters.

A methodological critique should identify the specific issue and explain why it may materially affect the interpretation or reliability of the findings.

A preference for an alternative method does not automatically establish that the published method is invalid.

Where necessary, the journal may seek independent methodological or statistical advice.

12. Replication and Reproducibility

The journal supports scholarly discussion concerning replication and reproducibility.

A failure to reproduce previously published findings does not automatically demonstrate error or misconduct. Differences may arise because of:

  • datasets;

  • sampling;

  • study populations;

  • geographical contexts;

  • time periods;

  • software versions;

  • model assumptions;

  • parameter settings;

  • analytical methods; or

  • other methodological conditions.

Replication-related submissions should provide sufficient methodological detail to enable meaningful comparison with the original study.

13. Research Data and Transparency

Readers may raise legitimate questions concerning the availability, provenance, processing, analysis, or interpretation of research data associated with a published article.

Such matters should be considered in conjunction with the journal's Research Data Sharing Policy and Data Availability Policy.

The journal does not require disclosure of information where access would violate legitimate:

  • privacy obligations;

  • confidentiality requirements;

  • ethical restrictions;

  • contractual agreements;

  • intellectual-property rights;

  • legal requirements; or

  • security considerations.

Where data access is restricted, the published Data Availability Statement should accurately describe the relevant conditions.

14. Statistical and Analytical Concerns

Post publication comments may address statistical errors, inappropriate analytical assumptions, reporting inconsistencies, unsupported significance claims, model-performance concerns, or interpretation of quantitative evidence.

Contributors should explain:

  • the specific analytical issue identified;

  • the relevant published result;

  • the basis for the concern; and

  • how the issue may affect interpretation or conclusions.

Where appropriate, the journal may obtain independent statistical or methodological assessment.

15. New Evidence and Subsequent Research

Publication of later research that differs from or challenges an earlier article does not automatically make the earlier publication invalid.

New evidence may contribute to scientific development by:

  • supporting earlier findings;

  • modifying interpretation;

  • identifying contextual limitations;

  • providing contradictory evidence;

  • refining methodologies; or

  • extending knowledge into different populations, systems, industries, or geographical settings.

Post publication discussion based on new evidence should explain clearly how that evidence relates to the original article.

16. Research Misconduct Concerns

Serious allegations involving:

  • plagiarism;

  • fabrication;

  • falsification;

  • manipulated data;

  • inappropriate authorship;

  • duplicate publication;

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • citation manipulation;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest; or

  • other forms of research or publication misconduct

will be handled through the journal's applicable research-integrity procedures rather than solely as ordinary academic correspondence.

The journal may request documentation, seek explanations from authors, consult independent experts, or contact relevant institutions where appropriate.

17. Anonymous Concerns

The journal may consider anonymous communications when they identify serious, specific, and potentially verifiable concerns.

Anonymous submissions should provide sufficient supporting information to permit meaningful assessment.

The journal is not required to pursue anonymous allegations that lack evidence or cannot reasonably be verified.

Where confidentiality is requested, the journal will seek to protect the contributor's identity to the extent reasonably possible while recognizing that some matters may require disclosure for legitimate investigative, ethical, or legal purposes.

18. Corrections Identified Through Discussion

Post publication discussion may identify an error that warrants formal correction.

A correction may be appropriate where an error affects part of the published article but does not invalidate the work as a whole.

A correction notice should:

  • identify the affected article;

  • describe the error;

  • provide the corrected information;

  • explain the effect of the correction where necessary; and

  • remain linked to the original publication.

Minor typographical errors that do not affect interpretation may not require a formal correction.

19. Retractions and Expressions of Concern

Where post publication discussion raises substantial concerns about the reliability or integrity of an article, the journal may consider further editorial action.

Depending on the available evidence, this may include:

  • correction;

  • editorial clarification;

  • expression of concern;

  • retraction; or

  • another appropriate notice.

Such actions are considered in accordance with the journal's Retraction Policy and Corrections and Retractions Policy.

Scholarly criticism or disagreement alone is not sufficient grounds for retraction.

20. Author-Initiated Corrections

Authors have a continuing responsibility to notify the journal if they discover a significant error in their published work.

Authors should provide information concerning:

  • the nature of the error;

  • the section affected;

  • the corrected information; and

  • whether the findings or conclusions are materially affected.

The journal will determine the appropriate form of correction or other editorial action.

21. Conflicts of Interest

Individuals participating in post publication discussions should disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Potential interests may include:

  • financial relationships;

  • institutional relationships;

  • research collaborations;

  • academic competition;

  • professional disputes;

  • commercial interests;

  • personal relationships; or

  • legal proceedings.

A competing interest does not necessarily prevent consideration of a contribution, but disclosure enables appropriate editorial evaluation.

22. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

An editor who has a significant conflict relating to the published article, authors, or individual raising the concern should not independently manage the matter.

Responsibility should be transferred to another qualified editor who can provide an impartial assessment.

This principle also applies when the article concerned was authored by an editor or editorial board member.

23. Defamatory and Legally Sensitive Material

The journal does not encourage unsupported accusations concerning fraud, dishonesty, professional misconduct, or other matters that may cause unjustified reputational harm.

Where serious concerns exist, contributors should describe the available evidence rather than make unsupported conclusions about an individual's intentions or conduct.

The journal may revise, decline, or seek clarification concerning material that is defamatory, speculative, legally sensitive, or insufficiently substantiated.

24. Online Discussion and Moderation

Where the journal provides facilities for online comments or scholarly discussion, contributions may be moderated to maintain relevance, accuracy, and professional standards.

The journal may decline or remove:

  • spam;

  • advertising;

  • promotional content;

  • abusive or discriminatory language;

  • personal attacks;

  • duplicate comments;

  • confidential personal information;

  • copyright-infringing material;

  • malicious links; or

  • content unrelated to the published article.

Moderation should not be used to suppress legitimate academic criticism.

25. Publication of Comments and Responses

Formal scholarly comments and author responses that are accepted for publication should be presented transparently and linked to the relevant article where technically feasible.

Where appropriate, the journal may publish the comment and author response together so that readers can evaluate the scholarly exchange in context.

Published comments and responses become part of the scholarly record and should ordinarily remain accessible.

26. Amendments to Published Discussions

Where a material error is identified in a published comment or author response, the journal may issue an appropriate correction or clarification.

Substantive changes should be documented transparently rather than made silently.

Removal of published scholarly discussion should be considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as compelling legal, privacy, security, or ethical requirements.

27. Repetitive Correspondence

The journal is not required to publish repeated correspondence concerning substantially the same matter after the issue has been adequately considered.

Further submissions may be evaluated where they provide:

  • significant new evidence;

  • new analysis;

  • relevant replication findings; or

  • information that materially changes the understanding of the issue.

This approach helps preserve the academic purpose of post publication discussion.

28. Timeliness

There is no fixed time limit for raising a legitimate scholarly concern regarding a published article.

Relevant issues may emerge shortly after publication or several years later.

The journal evaluates concerns according to their scholarly significance and evidentiary basis rather than solely according to the age of the publication.

29. Appeals

An author or contributor who believes that a decision concerning post publication discussion was procedurally or academically inappropriate may submit a reasoned appeal.

The appeal should:

  • identify the decision concerned;

  • explain the basis for reconsideration; and

  • provide relevant supporting information.

Where practicable, an appeal should be considered by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision.

Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision.

30. Relationship With Other Journal Policies

This policy should be read together with other relevant journal policies, including:

  • Publication Ethics Policy

  • Research Misconduct Policy

  • Plagiarism Policy

  • Research Data Sharing Policy

  • Data Availability Policy

  • Conflict of Interest Policy

  • Authorship Criteria

  • Article Withdrawal Policy

  • Retraction Policy

  • Corrections and Retractions Policy

  • Complaints and Appeals Policy

Where a matter falls primarily within a specialized policy, the relevant policy will guide the corresponding editorial procedure.

31. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors of published articles are expected to cooperate with legitimate post publication inquiries concerning their work.

Authors should:

  • respond accurately to reasonable editorial questions;

  • provide clarification where appropriate;

  • disclose significant errors;

  • cooperate with legitimate research-integrity assessments;

  • provide relevant supporting information when reasonably requested; and

  • avoid retaliatory conduct toward individuals raising good-faith scholarly concerns.

Authors may disagree with criticism but should address substantive issues through scholarly reasoning.

32. Responsibilities of Readers and Contributors

Individuals submitting post publication comments are expected to act in good faith.

Contributors should:

  • provide accurate information;

  • support serious claims with evidence;

  • disclose relevant competing interests;

  • respect confidentiality and privacy;

  • maintain professional communication;

  • avoid harassment or knowingly false allegations; and

  • correct material errors in their own communications when identified.

Good-faith scholarly criticism is an important component of academic discourse.

33. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for distinguishing among:

  • ordinary academic disagreement;

  • requests for clarification;

  • methodological criticism;

  • correctable errors;

  • ethical concerns;

  • research-data concerns; and

  • possible research misconduct.

Editorial responses should be proportionate to the seriousness of the issue and the strength of the available evidence.

Commercial, institutional, reputational, or personal considerations should not override the journal's responsibility to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

34. Preservation of the Scholarly Record

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations seeks to preserve the transparency and integrity of its published record.

Where post publication developments materially affect an article, appropriate notices should be linked to the original publication so that readers can understand its current status.

Corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and formal scholarly responses should not be used to conceal the history of the published record.

Commitment to Continuing Scholarly Dialogue

The Journal of Circular Economy Innovations considers responsible post publication discussion an important component of scholarly communication.

The journal supports evidence-based criticism, reasoned academic disagreement, replication, methodological scrutiny, clarification, and appropriate correction of published research. Post publication dialogue should contribute to the advancement of knowledge while respecting academic freedom, professional conduct, fairness, confidentiality, due process, and the integrity of the scholarly record.