Journal Sport Science, Health and Tourism of Mandalika (JONTAK) encourages constructive scholarly discussion of articles after publication. The journal recognizes that scientific knowledge develops through critical evaluation, independent scrutiny, reasoned disagreement, and correction of the published record in sport science, physical education, health, recreation, tourism, and related disciplines.

This policy establishes procedures for submitting and assessing post-publication comments, facilitating author responses, and taking appropriate editorial action when material errors or integrity concerns are identified. It is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance on post-publication critiques, transparent editorial practices, and the correction of the scholarly record.

1. Scope and Purpose of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion may address research methods, study design, data analysis, interpretation of results, theoretical arguments, reporting transparency, cited literature, or the practical implications of findings. Readers may offer alternative evidence-based interpretations or request clarification of published statements.

Reasonable academic disagreement is not in itself evidence of misconduct. The primary purposes of discussion are to advance knowledge, improve the clarity of published work, and identify issues requiring explanation or correction. Substantive concerns about the reliability or ethical conduct of a study will also be handled under the journal's relevant publication ethics policies.

2. Channels for Submitting Comments and Critiques

Authors, readers, reviewers, and other members of the scholarly community may submit a letter to the editor, scholarly commentary, or a reasoned post-publication concern to the JONTAK editorial office using the official contact details provided on the journal website. No public commenting feature is required for a concern to be considered.

A submission should identify the published article by title, author, and DOI or URL; clearly explain the question or criticism; and provide supporting references, documentation, or evidence where possible. Commenters should normally provide their name, affiliation, and contact information. Anonymous or confidential reports of potential integrity problems may be considered when sufficiently specific and supported by verifiable information.

3. Editorial Assessment and Moderation

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated independent editor will assess whether a submitted comment is relevant, clear, evidence-based, constructive, and appropriate for scholarly exchange. Editors may seek clarification, request revision, or obtain independent specialist advice when necessary.

The journal will not publish abusive, defamatory, discriminatory, threatening, repetitive, or primarily promotional statements, nor material that unnecessarily reveals private research-participant information. Reasoned criticism will not be excluded merely because it challenges a published article or the journal's prior editorial decision. Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must not decide the handling of the critique.

4. Author Responses and Further Evaluation

Where a critique raises a substantive scholarly issue, the editorial office will normally invite the authors of the original article to provide a response within a reasonable period. Responses should address the questions raised, explain relevant methods or evidence, and acknowledge any identified errors. When appropriate, the editor may ask an independent expert to assess the critique, response, or supporting documentation.

An author's decision not to respond does not automatically invalidate the critique or prevent editorial action. Editors will distinguish matters suitable for open scholarly debate from factual mistakes, unresolved questions of reliability, or possible misconduct requiring a separate investigation.

5. Publication and Accessibility of Scholarly Exchanges

Suitable critiques and author replies may be published as letters to the editor, comments, or other editorially approved correspondence, subject to the journal's available publication formats and editorial procedures. Such material may undergo editorial review or external peer review where necessary.

When a formal discussion is published, JONTAK will seek to make the relationship between the critique, the author's reply, and the original article clear through appropriate links and citations. Published contributions should identify their authors and any relevant competing interests. Editorial decisions on whether to publish an exchange will consider scholarly value, accuracy, proportionality, confidentiality, and applicable copyright or licensing conditions.

6. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

If post-publication discussion reveals a confirmed error that does not undermine the overall reliability of an article, the journal may publish a correction or clarification. If serious questions about reliability remain unresolved while an assessment or investigation is ongoing, an expression of concern may be appropriate. Retraction may be considered when reliable evidence shows that the article's findings or conclusions are seriously compromised.

Formal notices must accurately identify and link to the article concerned and explain the reason for the action. Published articles should not be silently replaced or removed to conceal errors. Any correction, expression of concern, or retraction will follow JONTAK's applicable editorial policies and relevant COPE guidance, with the primary aim of protecting the scholarly record rather than punishing individuals.

7. Research Integrity Concerns and Confidentiality

Post-publication comments alleging data fabrication, plagiarism, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship, or other potential misconduct will be referred for assessment under the journal's Allegations of Research Misconduct policy. The editorial office may request explanations or evidence and, when necessary, cooperate with relevant research institutions or integrity authorities.

Such allegations will not automatically be published as factual findings. The journal will consider the rights and privacy of complainants, authors, reviewers, research participants, and other affected parties, while seeking to communicate editorial outcomes transparently whenever doing so is appropriate.

8. Responsibilities, Reconsideration, and Recordkeeping

Readers and commenters are expected to act respectfully, accurately represent the evidence, and disclose relevant interests. Authors are expected to respond in good faith and cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification. Editors are responsible for impartial assessment, appropriate communication, and maintaining an accessible and reliable scholarly record.

A party who wishes to challenge the handling of a critique or resulting editorial action may submit a reasoned written request for reconsideration, identifying procedural concerns or relevant new evidence. Where feasible, the matter should be reviewed by an editor not responsible for the initial decision. The journal will retain an appropriate record of correspondence, assessments, and published notices, subject to its confidentiality and records-management obligations.