Post-Publication Discussion

Madago Nursing Journal (MNJ) welcomes constructive academic discussion, critical evaluation, and scholarly exchange concerning its published articles. Post-publication discussion helps clarify findings, identify limitations, address errors, and strengthen the reliability of nursing knowledge and evidence-based practice.

Readers, researchers, authors, nursing practitioners, educators, and other interested parties may submit scholarly comments, questions, or concerns about articles published in MNJ. Contributions must be relevant, evidence-based, respectful, and consistent with publication ethics.

1. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Discussion may address:

  1. Research design, sampling, instruments, data collection, and analytical methods.

  2. Interpretation of findings and the validity of conclusions.

  3. Theoretical frameworks and implications for nursing practice, education, or management.

  4. Limitations, inconsistencies, omissions, or errors.

  5. Ethical approval, informed consent, patient confidentiality, and participant protection.

  6. Transparency, reproducibility, and reporting quality.

  7. Potential plagiarism, inappropriate duplication, or other concerns affecting publication integrity.

Contributions should focus on the scholarly content of the article. Personal disputes, promotional material, and unrelated claims fall outside this policy.

2. Submission Procedures

Comments and concerns should be submitted through the journal’s official editorial contact channels.

Submissions should identify the article by title, author(s), publication year, and DOI or permanent URL, where available. They should clearly explain the issue, identify relevant passages or findings, and provide supporting evidence or references.

Contributors should provide their contact information and disclose relevant conflicts of interest. Anonymous concerns may be assessed when sufficient evidence is available, although anonymous correspondence will not ordinarily be published as a scholarly contribution.

The editorial office may request clarification or additional documentation. Submission does not guarantee publication.

3. Editorial Evaluation

An editor will assess the relevance, clarity, scientific substance, supporting evidence, and professional tone of each submission.

Depending on the concern, the journal may:

  • Conduct an internal editorial assessment.

  • Invite the original authors to respond.

  • Consult independent experts or reviewers.

  • Request additional evidence or supporting documentation.

  • Initiate an assessment under the journal’s research misconduct procedures.

Scientific disagreement alone does not establish misconduct or justify retraction. Decisions will reflect the evidence and the significance of the issue for readers.

4. Authors’ Opportunity to Respond

Authors will normally be offered a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive criticism or concerns about their work.

Responses should address the specific issues raised and provide relevant explanations, evidence, or corrections. The journal may request further clarification where necessary.

An author’s response does not automatically resolve a concern. Equally, failure to respond does not by itself establish misconduct. The journal may proceed with an appropriate editorial decision when a response is unavailable or necessary action should not be delayed.

5. Publication of Comments and Responses

Where appropriate, MNJ may publish accepted comments, correspondence, author responses, or editorial notices. This provision does not establish an unrestricted submission category for letters unrelated to published articles.

Contributions intended for publication are subject to editorial assessment and, when necessary, independent peer review. Published discussions and responses will be linked to the original article wherever technically possible.

The journal may edit contributions for clarity, length, language, and presentation without changing their scientific meaning. Substantive revisions will be discussed with the contributor.

Publication does not imply that the journal endorses every statement made. Contributors remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their submissions.

6. Corrections and Other Editorial Actions

When discussion identifies a credible concern, MNJ may:

  1. Seek clarification or supporting information.

  2. Publish a correction to address a material error or omission.

  3. Publish a clarification or editorial notice.

  4. Issue an Expression of Concern while serious questions remain unresolved.

  5. Retract an article when its findings are unreliable or other grounds for retraction are established.

  6. Refer concerns requiring formal investigation to the relevant institution or authority.

Actions will be proportionate to the evidence and consistent with the journal’s publication ethics procedures. Notices will explain the action and be linked to the affected article.

7. Professional Conduct

Comments must address the article’s methods, evidence, interpretation, or ethical aspects.

Personal attacks, harassment, discriminatory language, threats, deliberate misrepresentation, and unsupported accusations are unacceptable. The journal may request revision or decline publication of contributions containing such material.

However, concerns about communication style will not prevent the journal from assessing credible evidence of a serious integrity issue separately.

The journal will distinguish legitimate scholarly disagreement from honest error and potential misconduct.

8. Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

Unpublished correspondence and supporting documentation will be handled with appropriate confidentiality. Information may be shared with authors, independent advisers, institutions, or other parties when reasonably necessary for assessment or investigation.

Identifiable patient information and confidential research materials must not be included in public discussion. Supporting evidence containing sensitive information should be provided securely to the editorial office.

Editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw where impartiality could reasonably be questioned. An independent editor will handle the matter when necessary.

9. Research Integrity Concerns

Credible concerns involving fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, or inappropriate data or image manipulation will be assessed under the journal’s Research Misconduct Policy.

The journal may request original data, ethical approval information, consent documentation, or other evidence, subject to confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

Editorial assessment does not replace a formal institutional investigation. Nevertheless, MNJ may take appropriate action to inform readers and protect the scholarly record based on the evidence available.

10. Appeals and Further Correspondence

Contributors or authors who believe a decision was procedurally unfair or based on an error may submit a reasoned written appeal with supporting evidence.

Where practicable, an independent editor will review the appeal. The journal may uphold, revise, or reconsider the decision.

Repeated correspondence may be closed when it provides no new evidence or substantive grounds for reconsideration. New information concerning publication reliability may still be assessed.

11. Policy Implementation

Madago Nursing Journal supports respectful criticism and responsible academic debate as part of maintaining trustworthy nursing scholarship.

This policy operates alongside the journal’s policies on research misconduct, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, research ethics, and corrections and retractions. Editorial handling will be informed by relevant Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.

The journal may update this policy to reflect developments in publication ethics and editorial practice. Updates will be communicated through its official website.