1. Scope of Post-Publication Discussions

Post-publication discussions provide an opportunity for readers, researchers, and other members of the academic community to critically examine published research and contribute to the development of scholarly knowledge. Such discussions may address the interpretation of legal provisions, the validity of legal arguments, the adequacy of research methods, the accuracy of factual or bibliographical information, the use of sources, the consistency of findings, or other substantive matters relevant to the published article.

Submissions may take the form of a Letter to the Editor, a scholarly commentary, a critical discussion, or another appropriate contribution determined by the Editors. Post-publication discussions must be relevant to the article concerned, supported by reasonable academic arguments or evidence, and expressed in a professional and respectful manner. Personal attacks, defamatory statements, unsupported accusations, and content unrelated to scholarly discussion will not be accepted.

2. Submission of Discussions and Corrections

Readers who wish to submit a discussion, comment, or correction concerning a published article should contact the Editor-in-Chief at iusconstituendum@usm.ac.id. The submission should clearly identify the article concerned, including its title, author or authors, publication year, and DOI or article URL where available. The submitting party should explain the specific issue being raised, provide supporting references or evidence where appropriate, and state the requested clarification or correction.

The Editors may request additional information or supporting documentation when necessary to evaluate the submission. The journal may decline submissions that fall outside the scope of scholarly discussion, lack sufficient academic grounds, contain unsupported allegations, or do not meet the journal's applicable editorial requirements.

3. Editorial Assessment and Review

Every post-publication discussion or correction is subject to editorial assessment. The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board when appropriate, will consider the relevance, academic merit, accuracy, clarity, and potential significance of the submission. Where the subject requires specialist knowledge, the Editors may seek advice from independent experts or relevant reviewers.

The editorial assessment will distinguish between scholarly disagreement and concerns that may affect the accuracy or reliability of the published record. Differences in legal interpretation, theoretical perspective, or academic opinion do not, by themselves, establish that an article is incorrect or that misconduct has occurred. Such differences should be assessed on their scholarly merits.

Where a submission raises a credible concern about a factual error, inaccurate citation, research integrity, or another material issue, the Editors may contact the relevant author and request an explanation or supporting evidence. The assessment will be conducted fairly and impartially, taking into account the information available to the journal and the responses of the parties concerned.

4. Authors' Right to Respond

Where a post-publication discussion directly criticizes the content, methodology, interpretation, or conclusions of a published article, the original author or authors will ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the Editors make a final publication decision. The response should address the substantive points raised and should be supported by relevant academic reasoning, references, or evidence where appropriate.

If accepted, the original discussion may be published as a Letter to the Editor, and the author's response may be published as a Reply to the Letter to the Editor. The Editors will determine the appropriate publication format and timing, taking into account editorial requirements, the relevance of the response, and the need to provide readers with a balanced and informative academic discussion.

The opportunity to respond does not guarantee publication. Both the discussion and the response must satisfy the journal's editorial and ethical requirements. The Editors may request revisions, clarification, or additional evidence before reaching a decision.

5. Editorial Decisions and Publication of Discussions

Following assessment, the Editors may accept the discussion or correction for publication, request revisions, seek further expert advice, or reject the submission with appropriate editorial reasons. Accepted discussions and responses may be published in a subsequent issue or through another publication format supported by the journal.

Where practicable, the published discussion and the article under discussion should be clearly linked so that readers can identify and consult both contributions. The journal aims to facilitate transparent scholarly debate while ensuring that editorial decisions remain independent, fair, and based on academic considerations rather than personal, institutional, or commercial interests.

6. Corrections to Published Articles

If the Editors identify or receive credible evidence of an error or omission in a published article, the journal will assess whether corrective action is necessary to preserve the accuracy of the scholarly record. Authors are encouraged to cooperate with the Editors in clarifying the issue and providing relevant supporting information.

Where an error is confirmed and a correction is appropriate, the journal may publish a correction notice or another suitable editorial notice. The notice should identify the affected article and explain the nature of the correction clearly. Where technically possible, the correction notice will be linked to the original article so that readers can understand what has changed.

The appropriate action will depend on the nature and significance of the issue. Minor errors that do not undermine the overall reliability of the article may be addressed through a correction. More serious concerns affecting the reliability of the findings or conclusions may require further investigation and consideration of an expression of concern or retraction, in accordance with the relevant COPE guidance.

7. Research Integrity Concerns and Further Editorial Action

If a post-publication submission raises credible concerns about possible plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, citation manipulation, redundant publication, unethical research, or other potential research misconduct, the Editors will handle the matter under the journal's research misconduct policy and relevant COPE guidance.

The Editors may request an explanation from the authors and, where appropriate, contact the authors' affiliated institution or another competent body for further investigation. The journal will assess the available evidence before determining the appropriate editorial action. Where the reliability of an article cannot be established and the evidence remains inconclusive, an expression of concern may be considered while further clarification or investigation is pursued.

If the assessment establishes that the published record requires formal correction or that the article should no longer be relied upon, the journal may issue a correction, an expression of concern, a retraction, or another appropriate notice in accordance with COPE guidance. Any notice will identify the article concerned and explain the reason for the action as clearly as possible. Retraction decisions are intended to correct the scholarly record and safeguard its integrity, rather than to serve as a form of punishment.

8. Transparency and Ethical Standards

All post-publication discussions, author responses, and correction requests will be handled in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and applicable publication ethics standards. The Editors will seek to maintain appropriate confidentiality during assessment, treat the parties fairly, manage relevant conflicts of interest, and make decisions based on the available evidence and academic merit.

By providing a transparent process for scholarly discussion and correction, Ius Constituendum supports constructive academic debate, accountability in research communication, and the continuing reliability of the published scholarly record.