1. General Policy

Epidemiology and Society Health Review (ESHR) is committed to promoting transparency, scientific integrity, and constructive academic dialogue after the publication of scholarly articles.

The journal recognizes that scientific evaluation continues beyond the peer-review and publication processes. Post-publication discussion provides opportunities for researchers, readers, and other stakeholders to critically examine published findings, clarify research interpretations, identify potential limitations, and contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

ESHR follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the ethical principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in facilitating responsible scientific discussions concerning published research.

2. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

ESHR welcomes scholarly comments, questions, and constructive criticism concerning articles published in the journal.

Post-publication discussions may address:

• The validity and interpretation of research findings.

• Research methodology, study design, data analysis, and statistical approaches.

• Limitations, potential biases, and implications of published research.

• Relevance of research findings to epidemiology, public health, health systems, and society.

• Scientific evidence that supports, challenges, or extends previously published findings.

• Potential errors, inconsistencies, or ethical concerns identified after publication.

All discussions must be evidence-based, relevant to the published article, and conducted respectfully.

3. Mechanisms for Post-Publication Discussion

ESHR facilitates post-publication discussion through correspondence with the editorial office and, where appropriate, the publication of scholarly responses.

Readers, researchers, and other interested individuals may submit comments or concerns regarding published articles through the journal's official contact channels.

Submissions should clearly identify the article being discussed, including its title, authors, publication year, and DOI, where available.

Depending on the nature and significance of the discussion, the editorial team may consider the following forms of communication:

• Letter to the Editor: A scholarly comment, critique, or question regarding a previously published article.

• Author Response: A response from the original authors addressing comments or criticisms raised by readers.

• Editorial Commentary: An editorial clarification or discussion addressing important scientific issues.

• Formal Editorial Notice: A correction, expression of concern, or retraction when warranted under the journal's publication ethics policies.

Publication of correspondence is subject to editorial assessment and is not guaranteed.

4. Submission and Editorial Assessment

Comments or correspondence submitted for post-publication discussion should meet the following requirements:

1. Be directly relevant to an article published in ESHR.

2. Present clear, constructive, and scientifically justified arguments.

3. Include appropriate supporting evidence or references when necessary.

4. Avoid personal attacks, defamatory statements, discriminatory language, or unsupported allegations.

5. Disclose any relevant conflicts of interest.

6. Provide the contributor's name, institutional affiliation, and contact information to the editorial office.

The editorial team will assess submissions for relevance, scientific merit, clarity, ethical considerations, and suitability for publication.

Where necessary, ESHR may request revisions, seek independent expert opinions, or invite responses from the authors of the original article.

The editorial team reserves the right to decline comments that are irrelevant, unsupported, repetitive, inappropriate, or inconsistent with the journal's ethical standards.

5. Authors' Right to Respond

Authors whose published work is the subject of substantial scientific criticism will be given an opportunity to respond.

The corresponding author will normally be contacted by the editorial office and invited to provide clarification, supporting evidence, or a reasoned response to the issues raised.

Authors are expected to respond professionally and constructively, particularly when questions concern research methods, data interpretation, or the reliability of published findings.

Where appropriate, the journal may publish the original correspondence and the authors' response together to promote balanced scientific discussion.

6. Editorial Moderation and Transparency

ESHR is responsible for ensuring that post-publication discussions maintain academic integrity and professional standards.

The editorial team may edit correspondence for clarity, grammar, length, and journal style without changing the intended scientific meaning.

Editorial decisions will be made independently and fairly, without discrimination based on institutional affiliation, academic position, nationality, or personal relationships.

Disagreements involving scientific interpretation are recognized as a normal part of scholarly debate and do not automatically indicate research misconduct.

Personal accusations, confidential information, and unsupported allegations will not be published as part of an open scientific discussion.

7. Handling Concerns About Research Integrity

When a post-publication discussion identifies potentially serious errors, unreliable findings, or suspected research misconduct, ESHR will assess the concerns in accordance with its Publication Ethics and Correction and Retraction Policy.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue, the editorial team may:

• Request clarification or additional information from the authors.

• Seek independent expert assessment.

• Contact relevant institutions or research ethics committees when appropriate.

• Publish a correction or expression of concern.

• Retract an article when sufficient evidence demonstrates that its findings are unreliable or that serious publication ethics violations have occurred.

Such actions will be undertaken to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

8. Publication and Accessibility of Discussions

When accepted for publication, post-publication correspondence and author responses will be made accessible through the ESHR journal website.

Published discussions should clearly identify and reference the original article to ensure transparency and appropriate scholarly context.

Where applicable, correspondence and responses may be linked electronically to the original publication.

ESHR aims to maintain the accessibility of published discussions as part of the scholarly record and to support ongoing scientific communication.

9. Responsibilities of Participants

All individuals participating in post-publication discussions are expected to uphold the principles of research integrity, academic professionalism, and respectful communication.

Contributors are responsible for the accuracy of their statements and the evidence supporting their arguments.

Authors are responsible for providing reasonable clarification regarding their published work when requested by the editorial team.

Editors are responsible for facilitating fair discussion, safeguarding confidentiality where necessary, and taking appropriate action when credible concerns arise.

10. References

1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals: Correspondence. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/correspondence.html

2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Core Practices. https://publicationethics.org/core-practices