Publication Discussion

Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum believes that scholarly discussion continues after an article is published. The journal welcomes comments, criticism, and responses to published articles, because open academic debate helps legal scholarship develop and keeps the scholarly record accurate. This policy explains how readers can take part in that discussion and how the journal handles it.

1. Purpose

Post-publication discussion gives readers an opportunity to:

  • offer substantive comments, criticism, or alternative views on a published article,
  • point out errors in data, citations, legal materials, or reasoning,
  • add new information, such as later developments in legislation or court decisions, that is relevant to the article,
  • raise concerns about the integrity of the research.

2. Channels for Discussion

Readers can take part in post-publication discussion in the following ways:

  • Letter to the Editor. A short written response to a published article, sent by email to redaksi.jbmh@unpad.ac.id with the subject line “Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title]”.
  • Response article. A longer critical response that develops a full scholarly argument. It may be submitted as a new manuscript through the journal’s online submission system and goes through the normal peer review process. Please refer to our Manuscript Types.
  • External platforms. Readers may also discuss articles on external platforms such as PubPeer or academic social networks. The journal monitors significant concerns raised on such platforms and may follow them up in line with this policy.

3. Requirements for Letters to the Editor

A letter to the editor should:

  • refer to a specific article published in Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum, including its title and DOI,
  • be submitted within 12 months of the article’s publication, unless it raises serious concerns about the integrity of the research,
  • be no more than 1,500 words, including references,
  • be written in English,
  • focus on substantive scholarly matters and be supported by arguments and references,
  • use respectful, professional language, without personal attacks,
  • include the writer’s full name, affiliation, and email address, and any conflict of interest (see our Conflict of Interest policy).

4. Handling Procedure

  1. Editorial assessment. The Editor in Chief reviews the letter to determine whether it is relevant, substantive, and meets the requirements above. Letters that do not meet the requirements will be declined, and the writer will be informed.
  2. Author’s right of reply. If the letter is accepted for consideration, the author of the original article is sent a copy and given the opportunity to respond within 30 days.
  3. Decision. The editors decide whether to publish the letter, together with the author’s reply where there is one. Letters and replies may be edited for length and clarity, with the agreement of the writers.
  4. Publication. Published letters and replies are linked to the original article, so readers can follow the full discussion.

5. Outcomes

Depending on the content of the discussion, the editors may take one of the following actions:

  • No further action, if the discussion concerns a difference of scholarly opinion. Differences of interpretation are a normal part of legal scholarship and are not grounds for correction.
  • Publication of the letter and the author’s reply, if the discussion adds value to the scholarly debate.
  • Correction (erratum or corrigendum), if the discussion reveals an honest error that does not affect the article’s main conclusions.
  • Expression of concern or retraction, if the discussion reveals a serious error that undermines the validity of the article’s findings.
  • Investigation of misconduct, if the discussion raises concerns about fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other misconduct. Such concerns are handled under the journal’s policy on Allegations of Research Misconduct.

6. Principles

The journal handles every post-publication discussion fairly, transparently, and promptly. Authors and commentators are treated with respect. The journal does not tolerate abusive or defamatory language from any party. All decisions follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).