Post Publication

1. Commitment and Scope

BAJU: Journal of Fashion and Textile Design Unesa encourages open, objective, and constructive scholarly discussion of its published articles. Readers, authors, researchers, practitioners, and other interested parties may submit comments, questions, scholarly critiques, and requests for clarification to broaden understanding, advance knowledge, and maintain publication integrity. The handling of post-publication discussions is guided by the relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Discussions may address research methods, data analysis, interpretation of findings, textile testing, design development processes, patterns, motifs, documentation of creative work, source attribution, or other aspects of an article. Differences in scholarly opinion, methodological approaches, or aesthetic judgment are not automatically considered errors or ethical violations. Such differences may be addressed through scholarly correspondence without necessarily requiring changes to the original article.

2. Submission of Comments and Requests for Clarification

Scholarly comments and requests for clarification should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through:

Email: [email protected]
Subject: Post-Publication Discussion – [Article Title or DOI]

Comments submitted for publication as scholarly correspondence should include:

1. The contributor’s full name, affiliation, if any, and contact information.
2. The title, authors, and DOI or URL of the article being discussed.
3. A clear explanation of the comment or concern, identifying the relevant passages, tables, figures, or findings.
4. References, data, documents, or other verifiable supporting evidence, where applicable.
5. A declaration of any potential conflicts of interest relating to the article or the parties involved.

Comments may be submitted in Indonesian or English. Contributors should distinguish personal opinions and differences in interpretation from factual concerns requiring examination.

Anonymous reports concerning research integrity will also be considered when they contain sufficiently specific, relevant, and actionable information. Concerns raised through other channels may also be examined when they have a credible basis. These reports are handled separately from scholarly correspondence submitted for publication under the contributor’s name.

3. Editorial Assessment

The editorial team assesses comments based on their relevance, clarity, accuracy, supporting evidence, and contribution to scholarly discussion. Comments must use professional language and must not contain personal attacks, insults, discriminatory remarks, or defamatory statements.

Comments will not be rejected solely because they criticize or disagree with the conclusions of a published article. However, the editorial team may decline irrelevant comments or repetitive correspondence that provides no new information or arguments, with an explanation provided to the contributor.

The editorial team may request additional explanations, supporting evidence, or revisions before reaching a decision. Requests to revise inappropriate wording do not prevent the examination of integrity concerns that have a substantive basis.

4. Opportunity for Authors to Respond

When a comment raises a substantive issue, the editorial team will give the authors of the article an opportunity to respond. Authors are requested to address the issues directly and provide appropriate explanations, references, data, or supporting documentation.

A reasonable response deadline will be established and communicated by the editorial team, together with an explanation of the next steps. Where necessary, comments and responses may be assessed by independent experts or undergo peer review.

The original authors’ agreement is not a condition for publishing a comment that meets the journal’s editorial requirements. If the authors do not respond within the specified period, the editorial team may proceed with its assessment and decision, indicating that no response has been received where this information is relevant.

5. Publication and Traceability of Discussions

Comments and responses accepted for publication will be made openly available through the journal website as scholarly comments, correspondence, or authors’ responses. Each contribution will be clearly identified, dated, and linked to the article under discussion. Where both a comment and a response are published, they will be linked to each other.

The publication of a comment does not imply that the editorial team endorses all the views expressed. Its purpose is to provide a forum for scholarly exchange that can be read and evaluated by the academic community.

The editorial team may conclude an exchange when the issues have been adequately addressed. Nevertheless, relevant new evidence that may affect the assessment of an article may still be considered.

6. Corrections and Other Editorial Actions

If a discussion reveals concerns affecting the accuracy, reliability, or integrity of an article, the editorial team will examine the matter in accordance with the journal’s policies on handling allegations of research misconduct, corrections, and retractions.

Depending on the nature of the concern and the strength of the evidence, editorial action may include:

1. Correction: When an error can be corrected and the article’s main findings remain reliable overall.
2. Expression of Concern: When serious and credible concerns need to be brought to readers’ attention while the evidence remains inconclusive or the investigation has not yet reached a decision.
3. Retraction: When there are sufficient grounds to establish that an article is unreliable or meets other grounds for retraction, such as substantial plagiarism, inappropriate duplicate publication, or unethical research.

Comments and authors’ responses do not replace formal editorial notices when such action is required. Any substantive changes to the publication record must be documented transparently, accompanied by an explanation, and linked to the relevant article.

7. Confidentiality, Independence, and Appeals

Personal information, unpublished evidence, and correspondence relating to an investigation will be handled confidentially to the extent possible. Information will be shared only with those who need it for assessment and follow-up. Requests to protect a reporter’s identity will be considered while taking into account the requirements of a fair examination.

Editors and reviewers with conflicts of interest must not participate in handling the matter. If the concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, responsibility will be assigned to an independent editor or a representative of the publisher who has no conflict of interest.

Contributors and authors may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, providing clear reasons, relevant evidence, or an explanation of a procedural error. Appeals will be reviewed by an individual without a conflict of interest and, wherever possible, someone who was not involved in the original decision. The editorial office will document the handling process and editorial decisions.