Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC) supports constructive scholarly discussion after publication to promote scientific transparency, critical evaluation, and the integrity of the published research record. The journal provides a mechanism for readers, researchers, and other interested parties to raise evidence-based questions, offer alternative interpretations, identify potential errors, and comment on articles published by MACC. This policy follows the recommendations in COPE, Handling of Post-Publication Critiques, which identifies post-publication discussion as an important means of raising concerns and facilitating scholarly exchange.

MACC considers post-publication discussion an extension of scholarly communication and distinguishes scientific criticism from allegations of research or publication misconduct. The journal assesses comments according to their scientific relevance, supporting evidence, professional tone, and potential implications for the reliability of the published article. COPE recommends that journals maintain a transparent policy for handling post-publication critiques and ensure that critiques contain reasonable arguments supported by evidence. See COPE, Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

Post-publication discussion may address the interpretation of findings, methodological limitations, statistical analysis, clinical relevance, reporting accuracy, research ethics, reproducibility, and other matters relevant to an article published by MACC. Eligible submissions may take the form of letters to the editor, scholarly comments, correspondence, or formal critiques, subject to the journal's editorial assessment. COPE recognises these formats as common mechanisms for post-publication critique in Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

MACC may also consider comments that identify potential data inconsistencies, inappropriate image manipulation, plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, errors in research reporting, or other concerns that could affect the integrity of a published article. Such concerns will be assessed under the journal's relevant publication ethics procedures when necessary. COPE describes these categories of concerns in Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research.

Readers who wish to comment on an article published by MACC should submit their comments through the journal's official editorial or submission channels. A submission should identify the article under discussion, explain the principal concern or argument, provide relevant references or supporting evidence, and state why the issue matters to the scientific or clinical interpretation of the work. COPE recommends that post-publication critiques provide evidence for their claims and follow a transparent editorial process. See COPE, Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

MACC encourages concise, reasoned, and professionally written submissions that contribute meaningfully to scientific discussion. Comments must not contain defamatory statements, personal attacks, unsupported accusations, discriminatory language, or irrelevant material. COPE advises journals to ensure that post-publication critiques remain reasonable, evidence-based, and free from libellous or defamatory content in Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

When a comment raises a specific concern about a published article, the editorial office may request clarification, supporting documents, additional references, or revisions before proceeding with editorial assessment. MACC may decline submissions that do not provide a meaningful scholarly contribution or that fail to meet the journal's editorial and ethical requirements.

The editorial team will assess each post-publication submission for relevance, scientific merit, clarity, supporting evidence, and compliance with the journal's publication ethics requirements. MACC may request an independent expert assessment when the comment involves specialised methodological, statistical, clinical, or scientific issues. COPE's Handling of Post-Publication Critiques guidance recognises that a formal critique and the original authors' response may undergo peer review.

The editor may request revisions, seek additional information, invite a response from the original authors, or decline the submission when the comment lacks sufficient evidence or does not meet the journal's standards. Editorial decisions should focus on the substance of the argument rather than the identity, professional status, or institutional affiliation of the contributor. This procedure implements MACC's commitment to fair and evidence-based editorial assessment.

When a post-publication critique raises substantive questions about a published article, MACC will normally invite the original authors to respond. The invitation allows the authors to clarify their methods, explain their findings, provide additional information, or address the issues raised by the critique. COPE states that journals often invite the authors of the original article to respond to a formal critique in Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

The original authors should address the substantive points raised and support their explanations with appropriate evidence or references. The editorial team may review the response independently or arrange further peer review when necessary. MACC may publish the critique and the authors' response together or link the two publications to provide readers with a balanced account of the scholarly exchange, where appropriate. COPE identifies the publication of critiques and author responses as a means of facilitating constructive scholarly discussion in Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

If the original authors do not respond within the stated period, MACC may proceed with the editorial assessment based on the available evidence and may indicate in the published discussion that the authors did not provide a response. The absence of a response will not, by itself, be treated as proof that the critique is correct.

MACC may publish an accepted critique as a letter to the editor, commentary, correspondence item, or another appropriate scholarly format. When the original authors submit a response, the journal may publish it alongside the critique or provide a direct link between the two records. COPE recommends transparent procedures for handling formal post-publication critiques and communicating the steps taken to the parties involved. See COPE, Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

Published comments and responses must meet MACC's standards for scientific relevance, accuracy, professional conduct, and publication ethics. Publication of a critique does not automatically mean that the journal endorses every claim it contains. The editorial team remains responsible for determining whether a submission meets the journal's publication requirements.

MACC will maintain an appropriate link between a published critique and the article it discusses so that readers can identify the relationship between the documents. Where a critique leads to a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, the journal will provide a clear connection between the affected article and the relevant editorial notice. COPE emphasises the importance of transparent post-publication processes and appropriate changes to the published record in Handling of Post-Publication Critiques and its Retraction Guidelines.

MACC will assess post-publication critiques in a timely and proportionate manner. The editorial office will communicate the expected review period, requests for revisions, deadlines for author responses, and intended next steps to the relevant parties. COPE recommends that journals communicate clearly with both the authors of a critique and the authors of the original article about timelines and the actions to be taken. See COPE, Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

MACC may establish reasonable deadlines for submissions and responses to ensure an orderly editorial process. However, the journal may consider a substantive concern raised after a longer interval when the issue remains relevant to the reliability, interpretation, or integrity of the published research. COPE's discussion of post-publication critiques recognises that time limits and other practical restrictions require careful consideration, as described in COPE, Post-Publication Critiques.

Scholarly discussion may occur through formal journal correspondence or external platforms that allow readers to comment on published research. MACC encourages readers to submit substantive concerns directly to the editorial office so that the journal can assess the information, communicate with the relevant parties, and determine whether an editorial response is required. COPE recommends that concerns about the integrity of published research be communicated directly to journals or publishers through a clearly identified contact channel. See COPE, Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research.

MACC cannot guarantee the accuracy of statements made on external websites or social media platforms. When the editorial team becomes aware of a credible concern through an external source, it may assess the information and invite the relevant parties to provide evidence or clarification. COPE advises journals to investigate relevant concerns regardless of the channel through which they are raised in Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research.

When a post-publication comment raises a credible concern about data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, research ethics approval, or another potential breach of publication ethics, MACC will assess the concern under its relevant editorial procedures. The journal may request supporting evidence, seek expert advice, contact the authors, or communicate with the relevant research institution when necessary. COPE identifies these issues among the types of concerns that may affect the integrity of published research in Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research.

MACC will distinguish an allegation from an established finding and will not assume that a public criticism proves misconduct. The journal will evaluate the evidence, consider the explanations provided by the relevant parties, and determine whether further investigation or editorial action is warranted. COPE provides a framework for responding to concerns about published articles in Responding to Concerns Raised Directly.

If the concern indicates that the published article contains an error or that its findings may be unreliable, MACC may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue. COPE provides guidance on the appropriate use of expressions of concern in Expressions of Concern and on retractions in its Retraction Guidelines.

A post-publication critique may identify an error that requires correction or raise a concern serious enough to require further investigation. MACC will determine the appropriate action according to the evidence and the effect of the issue on the reliability of the article. COPE notes that an article may need to be amended following a post-publication critique in Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

If the journal needs additional time to investigate a substantial concern about a published article, it may issue an expression of concern when appropriate. If the evidence establishes that the article meets the criteria for retraction, MACC will follow its retraction procedures and provide a clear explanation of the action. COPE addresses these decisions in Expressions of Concern and Retraction Guidelines.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices should remain accessible and clearly linked to the original article. MACC will not treat a post-publication discussion as a substitute for a formal correction or retraction when the published record requires an official amendment. COPE recommends that corrections and retractions remain visible and accessible to readers in Visibility of Corrections and Retractions.

MACC expects all participants in post-publication discussions to communicate professionally and to respect the rights and responsibilities of authors, readers, and researchers. The journal may request revisions or decline comments that contain personal attacks, unsupported allegations, defamatory statements, or material unrelated to the scientific issue under discussion. COPE advises journals to ensure that post-publication critiques are reasonable and do not contain libellous or defamatory content in Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

MACC will handle allegations and supporting information with appropriate confidentiality and will respect a correspondent's request for anonymity where practicable and consistent with a fair assessment. The journal will communicate relevant concerns to the parties involved when necessary to obtain a meaningful response. COPE discusses anonymity, communication, and the handling of concerns about published research in Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research.

MACC will inform the relevant contributors of significant editorial decisions concerning a post-publication critique, including acceptance, requests for revision, rejection, or referral for further investigation, as appropriate. The journal will explain the next steps and expected timelines when further action is required. COPE recommends neutral, fact-based responses that indicate the intended action and advises journals to inform complainants of the outcome when the investigation has concluded. See COPE, Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research.

The editorial decision will depend on the scientific merit of the submission, the evidence provided, the response from the original authors where applicable, and the potential implications for the published record. MACC may close a matter when the evidence does not support further action, while remaining open to reviewing substantial new evidence if it emerges later. This procedure follows the evidence-based approach described in COPE, Responding to Concerns Raised Directly.

MACC will review this policy periodically to ensure that its procedures remain appropriate for evolving scholarly communication practices and publication ethics guidance. The journal may update its submission requirements, editorial timelines, and procedures for post-publication comments when necessary. COPE's guidance on Handling of Post-Publication Critiques provides a framework for developing transparent and consistent editorial procedures for scholarly discussion after publication.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Handling of Post-Publication Critiques. COPE Flowchart, last reviewed 21 September 2021.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Post-Publication Critiques. Publication Integrity Week 2023 discussion.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Dealing with Concerns About the Integrity of Published Research. Discussion document, last reviewed 21 June 2023.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Responding to Concerns Raised Directly. COPE Flowchart.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Expressions of Concern. COPE Guidelines.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Visibility of Corrections and Retractions. COPE Position.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retraction Guidelines. Version 3, 2025.

Majalah Anestesia & Critical Care (MACC). Official Journal Website.