Purpose and Scope
Scholarly work continues to be examined after publication, and journals have a responsibility to enable that examination. This policy establishes the minimum principles governing post-publication discussion of content published by journals operating under the LMI publishing framework, whatever mechanisms a journal offers — letters to the editor, correspondence, commentaries, invited responses, reader-raised concerns, or hosted post-publication commentary.
Obligation to Enable Discussion
Each journal shall provide at least one route by which readers may raise substantive scholarly comment or concern about content it has published, and shall make that route publicly findable. A journal need not publish every submission it receives, but it shall consider them on their merits and shall not decline a submission because its criticism is unwelcome. Legitimate criticism shall not be suppressed because it is uncomfortable to the authors, to the editors, to an author’s institution, to a sponsor or advertiser (F3), or to LMI. Editorial independence protects the publication of well-founded criticism as much as it protects any other editorial decision (A3), and a decision to decline criticism may be escalated under A4 where interference is alleged.
Standards for Published Discussion
Post-publication discussion published by an LMI journal shall be: evidence-based, addressing the work by reference to reasons, data or method rather than assertion; relevant to the content in question; civil, addressing the work and not the person, free of personal attack, insinuation about motives unsupported by evidence, and discriminatory or abusive language (A1); transparent, with contributors identified in accordance with the journal’s stated practice; and accompanied by competing-interest disclosure on the same principles that apply to authors (E1). Journals may decline or require revision of submissions failing these standards, and may decline material that is repetitive, vexatious or outside the scope of scholarly debate. Journals that host reader comments shall moderate them against these standards and shall state their moderation position publicly.
Author Response
Where a journal publishes substantive criticism of an article, the authors of that article shall ordinarily be offered a fair opportunity to respond, with reasonable notice and a reasonable period, and the response published alongside or promptly after the criticism. Declining to respond, or failing to respond within a reasonable period, does not prevent publication of the criticism, and the journal may note that a response was invited. The right of reply is an opportunity, not a veto: authors cannot prevent publication of legitimate criticism by withholding agreement or by declining to engage.
Boundary with Misconduct Handling
Scholarly disagreement is debate and belongs here. Where a communication alleges, or the discussion discloses, fabrication, falsification, manipulation, plagiarism, ethical breach or other conduct within C5, the matter shall be transferred into the process established by that policy and handled with its confidentiality, notice and due-process protections — not conducted in public correspondence. A journal shall not publish an allegation of misconduct as correspondence in place of assessing it, and shall not treat the raising of such a concern as a reason for detriment to the person raising it (A4).
Boundary with Record Amendment
Post-publication discussion does not itself amend the Version of Record. A published comment, however persuasive, leaves the article as published; where discussion establishes an error or unreliability requiring record action, the appropriate remedy is determined and published under G2 and linked to the article. Formal correspondence, commentaries and author responses published as journal content are part of the scholarly record and shall receive persistent identifiers, metadata and preservation appropriate to their article type, with links to the article concerned under G1. Informal moderated comments or discussion-board posts need not receive a DOI, but shall remain clearly linked, dated, attributed according to the journal’s stated practice, and retained or moderated under a transparent policy.
Journal Implementation
Each journal determines which mechanisms it offers, and the format, length limits, timing, submission route, review arrangements and moderation practice applying to each. LMI requires the principle and the standards, not a uniform correspondence format.
Standards and Guidance
Informed by the COPE Core Practices on post-publication discussion and debate, and the ICMJE Recommendations on correspondence and responses.