PKM: Jurnal Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat welcomes scholarly comments, critiques, and responses concerning published articles from readers, authors, practitioners, community partners, and the academic community. Post-publication discussion aims to deepen understanding, evaluate the quality and relevance of reported community service activities, encourage the exchange of knowledge and practical experiences, and help maintain an accurate scholarly record.

This policy forms part of the journal's commitment to publication ethics, academic integrity, and the responsible dissemination of knowledge. It is implemented with reference to the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Discussion

Post-publication discussion may address the conceptual framework, needs assessment, program design, methods of implementation, use of data, community participation, evaluation procedures, interpretation of results, conclusions, and implications of a published article.

Comments may also address the relevance of an intervention to community needs, the appropriateness of the methods used, the sustainability of program outcomes, the potential for replication, and the accuracy of claims concerning the benefits or impact of community service activities.

Contributors may identify factual errors, methodological limitations, missing information, or matters requiring clarification. Discussions may also examine the relevance of reported activities to local contexts, the involvement of partner institutions, and the ethical considerations associated with working with communities.

Differences in approaches, interpretations, implementation strategies, and evaluations are part of academic and professional dialogue. Responses should engage with the substance of the published work through reasoned arguments, relevant evidence, and appropriate references while respecting diverse scholarly and practical perspectives.

2. Submission of Comments

Comments should be submitted through the official contact details provided on the journal's contact page or through another submission mechanism designated by the journal.

Contributors should provide their name and contact information, the title or DOI of the article under discussion, the specific passages or issues being addressed, and supporting evidence or references where appropriate.

For comments concerning community service activities, supporting materials may include relevant methodological explanations, published research, evaluation evidence, or other verifiable information. Personal data, confidential project records, and identifiable information about community members or participants must not be disclosed without an appropriate legal and ethical basis.

Contributors must disclose relevant financial, professional, institutional, or personal interests or relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their comments.

Comments must be clear, proportionate, respectful, and focused on scholarly or professional issues. Personal attacks, discriminatory language, unsupported accusations, misleading statements, and promotional material are not acceptable.

Anonymous reports concerning the integrity of a published article may be assessed under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct policy when the information provided is sufficiently specific and verifiable.

3. Editorial Assessment

Editors assess submitted comments for relevance, clarity, scholarly or practical value, supporting arguments, and their contribution to understanding the published article and its implications for community service practice.

Where necessary, editors may request revisions, further clarification, additional evidence, or assessment by an appropriately qualified expert. For comments involving specialized methods, evaluation techniques, ethical issues, or community engagement, the editor may seek advice from individuals with relevant expertise.

Editors with a conflict of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process.

Not all comments will be published. Editorial decisions will be based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal's readership, accuracy, and compliance with publication ethics requirements rather than agreement with the views expressed by the original authors or editors.

Substantiated criticism will not be rejected merely because it challenges the methods, conclusions, effectiveness, or reported outcomes of a published community service activity.

The editorial assessment of a comment does not automatically constitute a formal investigation of alleged misconduct. Concerns that require such an investigation will be handled under the journal's applicable publication ethics procedures.

4. Opportunity for Authors to Respond

Where a comment raises substantive questions requiring clarification from the authors of the published article, the editor will forward the comment to the relevant authors and provide an opportunity to respond within a specified timeframe.

Responses should address the issues directly, explain the rationale for the methods or conclusions where relevant, and provide supporting evidence, references, or additional methodological information as appropriate.

For community service articles, responses may clarify the implementation process, characteristics of the partner community, evaluation methods, interpretation of outcomes, program limitations, or conditions affecting the applicability and sustainability of the reported activities.

Comments and responses may be edited for clarity, length, language, and conformity with the journal's publication requirements, provided that their substantive arguments are not altered without appropriate agreement.

An author's failure to respond does not, in itself, prevent publication of a comment that has been assessed as suitable. The editor may proceed based on the available evidence and editorial assessment.

5. Publication and Traceability

Accepted comments may be published as scholarly correspondence, a commentary, a response article, or another publication format determined by the editor.

Where an author response is available and relevant, the journal may publish it alongside the comment or link it to the original discussion. Comments and responses will be linked to the article under discussion, where technically feasible, so that readers can follow the exchange in context.

Publication of a comment does not imply the journal's endorsement of every view expressed. Contributors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, attribution, and integrity of their information and arguments.

The original article will not be amended solely because alternative scholarly interpretations or different approaches to community service have been presented.

Where a comment establishes that a published article contains a factual error or another issue requiring formal editorial action, the journal will assess whether a correction, an Expression of Concern, a retraction, or another appropriate action is warranted under its policies for maintaining the publication record.

6. Follow-Up on Errors and Allegations of Misconduct

If a post-publication discussion identifies an error that may affect the accuracy, interpretation, or reliability of an article, the editor will assess the available evidence and determine whether an amendment or other editorial action is necessary.

Any substantive changes to a published article will be documented transparently and linked to the affected publication. Changes will not be made silently in a manner that prevents readers from identifying the nature of the amendment or tracing the publication history.

Comments containing allegations of research or publication misconduct will be handled under the journal's Allegations of Misconduct policy. Depending on the nature of the concern, the editor may request clarification from the authors, consult independent experts, or contact relevant institutions or partner organizations where appropriate.

Scholarly discussion does not replace a formal assessment of suspected misconduct. Criticism of an article, disagreement about the effectiveness of an intervention, or differences in the interpretation of community service outcomes do not, by themselves, establish an ethical violation.

The journal will take appropriate follow-up action based on the available evidence, relevant editorial policies, and applicable publication ethics guidance, with the aim of preserving the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.