Policy Statement
Biology, Medicine, & Natural Product Chemistry (BIOMEDICH) recognizes that scholarly communication and scientific evaluation continue after an article has been published. The journal welcomes constructive, evidence-based post-publication discussions that contribute to scientific understanding, clarify research findings, and maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
This policy provides a formal mechanism for readers, researchers, and other members of the scientific community to raise substantive questions, offer critical evaluations, and discuss articles previously published in BIOMEDICH.
Scope of Discussion
Post-publication discussions must relate directly to an article published in BIOMEDICH and make a meaningful contribution to scientific debate within the journal's scope, including biology, medicine, natural products, and related disciplines.
Eligible discussions may address:
- The validity, interpretation, and significance of published findings.
- Research methodology, experimental design, and statistical analysis.
- The reliability, reproducibility, and interpretation of reported data.
- Potential errors, inconsistencies, or limitations in published articles.
- Alternative scientific explanations supported by appropriate evidence.
- The accuracy of figures, tables, references, and other elements of a published article.
- Further scientific implications arising from the published research.
Submissions must focus on the scientific content of the article and contribute constructively to scholarly discussion.
Types of Submission
BIOMEDICH accepts post-publication discussions in the form of a Letter to the Editor or Short Communication, as appropriate to the nature and scope of the submission.
A post-publication discussion should identify the article being discussed and clearly explain the scientific issue, question, or interpretation that warrants further consideration. The submission must not be used as a substitute for a new research article, a review article, an appeal against an editorial decision, or a complaint unrelated to the scientific content of a published article.
Submission Procedure
Authors wishing to submit a post-publication discussion should submit their manuscript through the journal's official online submission system or contact the Editorial Office for further instructions.
The submission should include:
- The title and complete bibliographic information of the published article being discussed, including its DOI or URL, where available.
- A clear description of the scientific question, criticism, or issue being raised.
- Evidence-based arguments supported by relevant data and scholarly references.
- The full names and institutional affiliations of the contributing authors.
- A declaration of potential competing interests.
- Funding information, where applicable.
The manuscript must be original, written in clear academic English, and presented in a professional and respectful manner. Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their statements, the reliability of their supporting evidence, and the proper citation of relevant sources.
Editorial Assessment and Peer Review
All post-publication discussion submissions will undergo an initial assessment by the Managing Editor or a designated member of the Editorial Team.
The assessment will consider the relevance of the submission to the published article, scientific merit, originality, clarity, quality of supporting evidence, and compliance with the journal's publication ethics policies.
Where necessary, the journal may invite independent experts to evaluate the scientific arguments presented. The original article's authors may also be invited to provide clarification or respond to the issues raised.
Following assessment, the journal may accept the submission, request revisions, seek further expert evaluation, or reject it if it does not meet the journal's scholarly and ethical standards.
Publication decisions will be made independently and based on the scientific quality and relevance of the submission.
Right of Reply
When a post-publication discussion raises substantive scientific questions or criticisms concerning a published article, BIOMEDICH will, where appropriate, invite the original author or authors to submit a response.
The response should address the specific issues raised and be supported by relevant scientific reasoning and evidence. It will be subject to editorial assessment and, when necessary, peer review.
Where appropriate, the discussion and the corresponding response may be published together or linked to the original article to facilitate balanced and transparent scholarly communication.
The original author or authors will be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. However, the absence of a response will not automatically prevent the journal from considering a scientifically valid discussion for publication.
Publication Ethics and Professional Conduct
All post-publication discussions must comply with the principles of academic integrity, objectivity, transparency, and professional conduct.
BIOMEDICH will not consider submissions containing personal attacks, defamatory statements, discriminatory language, unsupported allegations, or arguments that are unrelated to the scientific content of the article under discussion.
Authors must disclose relevant competing interests and ensure that their criticism is based on verifiable evidence and sound scientific reasoning.
Post-publication discussion must not be used to make unsupported allegations of research misconduct. Concerns involving potential research or publication misconduct will be assessed separately in accordance with the journal's applicable publication ethics procedures.
Corrections and Retractions
If a post-publication discussion identifies a potential error or raises concerns regarding the reliability or integrity of a published article, the Editorial Office will assess the available evidence and may request additional information from the relevant authors or institutions, where appropriate.
Depending on the nature and significance of the concern, the journal may issue a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with its publication ethics policies and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
A critical comment or disagreement does not, by itself, establish that a published article is invalid or that research misconduct has occurred. Any action affecting the published scientific record must be based on an appropriate assessment of the available evidence.
Publication and Accessibility
Accepted post-publication discussions and responses will be published as scholarly contributions and linked to the original article whenever feasible.
The journal aims to ensure that readers can access the discussion alongside the relevant published research, thereby supporting transparency, accountability, and the continued development of scientific knowledge.
Any formal correction, expression of concern, or retraction will be clearly identified and linked to the affected article, as appropriate, to preserve the accuracy and traceability of the scholarly record.
Editorial Independence and Fairness
All post-publication discussions will be handled fairly, consistently, and independently of the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, academic position, or personal relationship with the journal.
Editorial decisions will be based on scientific merit, the quality of the evidence presented, relevance to the published article, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical standards.
BIOMEDICH is committed to facilitating legitimate scientific criticism and maintaining an open, respectful, and evidence-based scholarly environment.
Contact Information
For inquiries regarding post-publication discussions, authors and readers may contact the Editorial Office of Biology, Medicine, & Natural Product Chemistry through the journal's official website (email).
