Sentralisasi is committed to promoting scholarly dialogue, transparency, accountability, and the continuous improvement of published research. The journal welcomes constructive post-publication discussion that contributes to scientific debate, clarifies research findings, identifies potential errors, and advances knowledge in the fields covered by the journal. This policy is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practice 10: Post-publication Discussions and Corrections, which states that journals must allow post-publication debate and establish mechanisms for correcting, revising, or retracting published articles.

Post-publication discussion may take the form of a letter to the editor, scholarly commentary, a critique of a published article, a response from the original authors, or another appropriate form of academic correspondence. COPE's Handling of Post-publication Critiques flowchart provides guidance for journals considering formal critiques of previously published content and encourages constructive scholarly exchange.

This policy applies to concerns, comments, critiques, questions, and scholarly responses relating to articles published in Sentralisasi. Submissions may address the interpretation of results, research methods, data analysis, theoretical arguments, the relevance of conclusions, the reproducibility of findings, the accuracy of citations, or other matters of scholarly significance.

Post-publication discussion must contribute meaningfully to academic understanding and should be evidence-based, relevant to the published work, and expressed in a professional manner. COPE's guidance on handling post-publication critiques identifies the value of a critique to the scholarly community as an important consideration when deciding whether it should be considered for publication.

Readers, researchers, and other interested parties may submit a post-publication comment or critique through the journal's official submission system or the editorial contact listed on the Sentralisasi website. Submissions should clearly identify the published article concerned, explain the purpose of the discussion, and provide supporting evidence, references, or methodological explanations where appropriate.

The journal will assess whether a submission is relevant to the published article, offers a substantive scholarly contribution, and is presented in a constructive and professional manner. Where appropriate, a submitted critique may undergo editorial assessment and independent peer review before a publication decision is made. These procedures are informed by the COPE Handling of Post-publication Critiques flowchart.

The journal may decline submissions that are irrelevant, unsupported, repetitive without meaningful new information, defamatory, abusive, or inconsistent with the journal's publication ethics standards. Any decision not to proceed with a critique should be based on appropriate editorial considerations rather than solely on the fact that the critique challenges an article previously published by the journal.

When a substantive critique of a published article is considered for publication, Sentralisasi will ordinarily provide the original authors with an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised. The response should address the substantive points in the critique and provide relevant evidence, clarification, additional analysis, or a reasoned explanation where appropriate.

The journal may consider publishing the critique and the authors' response together or in a coordinated publication sequence to support a balanced and transparent scholarly exchange. COPE's guidance on handling post-publication critiques discusses inviting the original authors to respond and considering whether both the critique and response should undergo peer review.

If the original authors decline to respond or do not respond within the reasonable period communicated by the editorial office, the journal may proceed with its assessment of the critique on the basis of the available evidence. Where a response is not received, the journal may indicate this fact in the published discussion, where relevant and appropriate, without implying that the absence of a response proves the critique to be correct.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will assess each submission to determine whether it merits further consideration, requires expert advice, or raises concerns that should be addressed through another publication ethics procedure. Depending on the subject and complexity of the submission, the journal may invite independent reviewers with appropriate expertise to evaluate its accuracy, significance, fairness, and scholarly contribution.

Editors and reviewers involved in assessing a critique or response must disclose relevant competing interests and avoid participating where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The editorial process should be fair to the submitting author, the original authors, and other parties involved. COPE's post-publication critique guidance identifies potential conflicts of interest and the possible need for peer review as considerations when handling formal critiques.

Editorial decisions will be based on scholarly merit, the relevance of the concerns, the quality of supporting evidence, and the journal's publication ethics requirements. The journal will not treat disagreement with an article's conclusions, by itself, as evidence of research misconduct.

If a post-publication comment or critique identifies a possible factual, methodological, analytical, or interpretative error, the journal will assess whether the concern can be resolved through clarification, an author response, or a formal correction. The journal may request explanations, supporting materials, or relevant research records from the authors where necessary to evaluate the concern.

If the concern raises a credible possibility of research misconduct, including data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, or manipulation of the peer-review process, the journal will handle the matter under its applicable research misconduct procedures. Where appropriate, the journal may contact the relevant institution or research integrity authority. COPE's Retraction Guidelines explain circumstances in which retraction may be warranted and emphasize the role of editorial action in correcting the scholarly record.

Sentralisasi will take appropriate action when an assessment establishes that a published article requires correction or another formal editorial notice. The action will be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the issue and the extent to which the reliability, interpretation, or integrity of the published work is affected.

A correction may be appropriate when an error affects a limited part of an article but does not invalidate its principal findings or conclusions. COPE's Retraction Guidelines explain that correction may be preferable to retraction when the main findings remain reliable and the error can be adequately addressed.

An expression of concern may be considered when serious questions have arisen about an article's reliability or integrity but the available evidence is inconclusive, or when an investigation is ongoing or significantly delayed. The journal will reassess the matter when additional evidence becomes available, in accordance with the principles in the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Retraction may be considered when there is clear evidence that an article's findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, or falsification; when serious plagiarism or redundant publication is established; when research was unethical; when publication resulted from a compromised or manipulated peer-review process; or in other circumstances identified in the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice will be written in objective, factual, and non-inflammatory language. Where a retraction is issued, the notice should clearly identify the affected article, explain the reasons for the action, identify who is retracting the article, and be linked to the original publication wherever possible. These requirements follow the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

The journal will handle post-publication discussions impartially and will provide a fair opportunity for relevant parties to present evidence and respond to substantive concerns. Authors who raise legitimate scholarly concerns must not be disadvantaged merely because their comments challenge previously published work.

Personal attacks, harassment, threats, and unsupported allegations against authors, reviewers, editors, or other individuals will not be accepted as substitutes for evidence-based scholarly argument. The journal may request revisions or decline content that does not meet its standards for professional academic communication.

Information obtained during editorial assessment will be handled confidentially where appropriate, subject to the need to investigate credible concerns and protect the integrity of the scholarly record. COPE's Core Practices provide the broader publication ethics framework for transparent editorial processes, the handling of allegations, and post-publication corrections.

Accepted critiques, commentaries, and author responses may be published as separate scholarly contributions or in another appropriate format determined by the journal. Where possible, the published discussion should be linked to the article under discussion so that readers can identify the relationship between the original work and subsequent commentary.

If a formal correction, expression of concern, or retraction is published, the notice should be clearly identifiable and linked to the original article wherever possible. Retraction notices should be accessible to readers without unnecessary access restrictions, consistent with the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board are responsible for implementing and periodically reviewing this policy. The journal may revise its procedures in response to developments in publication ethics, changes in COPE guidance, and lessons learned from handling post-publication discussions and corrections.