Policy on Comments, Replies, and Follow-up Comments
Sana'a University Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology
A peer-reviewed, open‑access journal publishing high‑quality research
COMMENTS, REPLIES & FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS POLICY
Guidelines for post-publication scientific correspondence
1. Purpose
Sana'a University Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology (SUJAST) recognizes scholarly correspondence as an important mechanism for promoting scientific discussion, clarification, correction, and post-publication academic debate. The Journal therefore permits the publication of Comments, Authors' Replies, and Follow-up Comments concerning articles previously published in the Journal.
Such correspondence must be evidence-based, scientifically relevant, respectful, and focused on substantive issues related to the published work.
2. Comment on a Published Article
A Comment is a scholarly contribution that raises substantive scientific, methodological, interpretive, or other relevant issues concerning a previously published article. A Comment should:
- Identify the published article clearly.
- Present specific and scientifically justified observations.
- Provide evidence and appropriate references where applicable.
- Distinguish between factual errors, methodological concerns, differences in interpretation, and matters of scientific disagreement.
- Maintain a professional and respectful academic tone.
3. Authors' Reply
- When a Comment is considered suitable for publication, the Journal will normally provide the authors of the original article with an opportunity to respond.
- The Authors' Reply should address the substantive issues raised in the Comment, providing appropriate explanations, evidence, analyses, or references where necessary.
- The Journal may publish the Comment and the Authors' Reply together, or in closely related publication formats, in accordance with its editorial and production policies.
4. Follow-up Comment on the Authors' Reply
If the commenter considers that the Authors' Reply does not adequately address a substantive scientific issue raised in the original Comment, the commenter may submit a Follow-up Comment on the Authors' Reply.
- Must contain substantive new scientific reasoning or evidence.
- Must clearly identify the specific points in the Authors' Reply that remain unresolved.
- Must explain, with appropriate evidence, why the previous reply is considered inadequate.
- Should not merely repeat arguments already presented in the original Comment or express disagreement solely because the authors reached a different scientific interpretation.
5. Editorial Assessment
Assessment Criteria
All Comments and Follow-up Comments are subject to an initial editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor, which considers:
- Scientific relevance and significance.
- Clarity and validity of the arguments.
- Supporting evidence and references.
- Whether the submission raises a substantive issue.
- Whether the matter has already been adequately addressed.
- Professional and respectful presentation.
Grounds for Rejection
The Journal may reject a Comment or Follow-up Comment that is:
6. Editorial Review and External Expertise
Comments and Follow-up Comments are not normally subjected to the same peer-review process as original research articles. However, the Editor-in-Chief may, at their discretion, seek advice from an independent subject-matter expert when the issues raised are technically complex, specialized, or otherwise require additional scientific assessment.
Such consultation is intended to assist the editorial decision and does not necessarily constitute a conventional peer review of the original article.
7. Opportunity for Authors to Respond
- When a Follow-up Comment raises substantive and credible issues that warrant further clarification, the Journal will normally provide the original authors with an opportunity to respond.
- Authors may be requested to provide additional explanations, analyses, references, or other scientifically relevant information necessary to clarify the matter.
- The Journal does not require authors to undertake new research or provide information merely because it has been requested by a commenter.
8. Allegations of Misleading Reporting or Research Misconduct
A distinction shall be made between the following two situations. A disagreement between a commenter and the authors does not, by itself, constitute research misconduct.
9. Limits on Repeated Correspondence
The Journal supports scholarly debate but does not permit an indefinite sequence of Comments and Replies. As a general rule, the Journal will normally permit the following sequence:
10. Editorial Independence
The decision to publish a Comment, Reply, or Follow-up Comment rests with the Journal and is independent of the personal views of the Editor, commenter, or authors. The Journal will seek to ensure that all parties are treated fairly and that published correspondence contributes constructively to the scientific record.
The publication of correspondence does not imply that the Journal has determined that either party is scientifically correct.
11. Correction of the Scientific Record
If correspondence demonstrates a significant factual, methodological, or interpretive error, the Journal may take corrective action, which may include:
- A correction
- A clarification
- An editorial note
- An expression of concern
- A retraction
12. Final Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief may determine, at any stage, that the scientific issue has been adequately addressed. The Journal reserves the right to close the correspondence when:
- The substantive issues have been adequately addressed.
- Further submissions are repetitive.
- No new evidence or scientific argument is presented.
- The correspondence becomes primarily argumentative rather than scientific.
- Further publication would not provide meaningful benefit to the scientific record.
