This policy governs post-publication comments, critiques, questions, scholarly responses, correction requests, and other concerns relating to articles published in Good Governance. It applies to authors, readers, researchers, reviewers, editors, and other parties who wish to raise substantive academic issues concerning published content.

Consistent with COPE's guidance on post-publication discussions and corrections, the journal recognizes that scholarly communication may continue after publication and that post-publication discussion can contribute to the clarification, evaluation, and improvement of published research.

 

Good Governance welcomes relevant and evidence-based comments concerning the methodology, data, interpretation, findings, references, and conclusions of published articles. Submissions may take the form of letters to the editor, scholarly commentaries, critical responses, or other formats approved by the editorial team.

In line with COPE Core Practice 10, the journal will provide an appropriate channel for post-publication debate, such as publication on the journal's website or another suitable moderated platform, depending on the journal's publishing arrangements.

 

A post-publication submission must identify the published article being discussed and clearly explain the concern, question, or argument being raised. Submitters should provide supporting evidence and relevant references where appropriate and ensure that their submissions are professional, respectful, and focused on scholarly issues.

The editorial office may request additional information, supporting documents, or revisions before evaluating a submission. Comments that are irrelevant, unsupported, abusive, defamatory, or primarily intended to promote personal disputes may be declined or returned for revision.

 

The editor will assess the relevance, supporting evidence, academic significance, and suitability of each submission. Where necessary, the editor may consult independent experts or reviewers to evaluate technical, methodological, or research-related concerns.

Following the approach outlined in the COPE flowchart on handling post-publication critiques, the journal will distinguish substantive scholarly criticism from material that may be inappropriate or potentially defamatory and will take proportionate steps to address concerns before deciding whether a comment should be published.

The editor may accept a submission, request revisions, invite a response from the original authors, seek independent advice, or decline the submission. Decisions will be based on scholarly merit and the evidence provided, rather than on whether the comment supports or challenges the original article's conclusions.

 

When a comment raises substantive concerns about a published article, Good Governance may invite the original author or authors to respond. The response should address the issues raised and provide clarification, supporting evidence, or additional information where appropriate.

Consistent with the COPE flowchart for handling post-publication critiques, the journal may facilitate communication between the parties to clarify the issues under discussion. The editor will oversee the process and determine whether the comment and response should be published together or separately.

The opportunity to respond does not guarantee publication. Comments and responses remain subject to editorial assessment and must meet the journal's standards for relevance, evidence, and professional conduct.

 

Good Governance is committed to correcting errors in published articles whenever necessary to maintain the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record. In accordance with COPE Core Practice 10: Post-publication discussions and corrections, the journal will assess reported errors and determine whether a formal correction or another editorial action is required.

A correction may be issued when an error or omission in a published article requires formal amendment but does not invalidate the main findings or conclusions. Examples include incorrect information, inaccurate references, errors in tables or figures, and other mistakes that could affect readers' understanding of the article. The correction notice will identify the original article, describe the error, provide the corrected information, and explain any relevant impact on the published content.

An erratum is used by Good Governance to correct an error introduced during editorial processing, typesetting, production, or publication. Examples may include typographical errors that alter meaning, incorrect figure placement, or production-related errors in the published article. The journal will publish an erratum when a formal notice is necessary to ensure that readers can identify and understand the correction.

A corrigendum is used by Good Governance to correct an error originating from the author or authors, such as an incorrect affiliation, an omitted acknowledgement, or inaccurate information supplied in the manuscript. The editor will assess the nature and significance of the error before deciding whether a corrigendum is appropriate and whether the proposed correction affects the interpretation, results, or conclusions of the article.

The terms correction, erratum, and corrigendum may be used differently by different publishers. Good Governance adopts the distinctions described above for its editorial procedures, while following the broader principles in COPE's guidance on post-publication discussions and corrections.

Requests for a correction, erratum, or corrigendum may be submitted by the authors, editors, readers, or other parties who identify a potential error in a published article. Requests should identify the article and its DOI or publication URL, describe the error, propose the correction, and provide supporting evidence where appropriate.

The editor will evaluate the nature, source, and significance of the reported error and may request clarification from the authors, consult independent experts, or seek further evidence before making a decision. Consistent with COPE Core Practice 10, the journal will determine the appropriate action based on the available evidence and the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

Approved correction notices will be published as clearly identifiable notices and linked to the original article wherever technically possible. The notice will explain what has been corrected and, where relevant, whether the error affects the interpretation or conclusions of the article. The journal will maintain a transparent record of the correction rather than silently changing material information in a way that conceals the amendment, consistent with COPE's guidance on post-publication discussions and corrections.

A correction may be insufficient when an error substantially undermines the reliability of an article's findings or raises serious concerns about research integrity. In such cases, Good Governance will assess whether an expression of concern, retraction, or another appropriate editorial action is necessary.

In accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines, retraction may be appropriate when the published findings are unreliable because of a major error, research misconduct, or other circumstances covered by the guidelines. The journal will assess the available evidence and select the action most appropriate to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

The publication of a correction, erratum, or corrigendum does not automatically imply intentional misconduct by the authors. Any suspected misconduct will be assessed separately under the journal's relevant publication ethics policies.

 

All parties involved in post-publication discussions must act in good faith and communicate respectfully. The journal does not tolerate harassment, threats, discrimination, or personal attacks presented as scholarly criticism.

Correspondence and supporting materials will be handled responsibly and shared only when necessary for editorial assessment, a fair response process, or the investigation of a legitimate concern. Where legal or other serious issues arise, the journal may consult the publisher or seek appropriate advice, consistent with the COPE flowchart on handling post-publication critiques.

 

The editorial office will communicate relevant decisions to the submitter and, where appropriate, to the original authors. The journal will make reasonable efforts to handle submissions within a reasonable timeframe, although cases requiring additional evidence, expert consultation, or institutional communication may take longer.

Editorial decisions will be based on the evidence, scholarly relevance, and applicable publication ethics principles. Where a submission is declined, the journal may provide an explanation appropriate to the circumstances. Decisions regarding corrections and other editorial notices will be made with the aim of maintaining the accuracy and transparency of the scholarly record.