Perspectives’ Policy on Post-Publication Critiques

We now shift from the contents of this issue to an important component of journal policy development that we are eager to share with readers of Perspectives and with the discipline at large. Authors advance knowledge through many forms of scholarship, including books and articles that engage and debate prior research. Sometimes, however, progress requires formal scrutiny of a specific article after publication. Journals have a responsibility to correct the scholarly record when errors are discovered in work that they have published and to take appropriate measures when ethical concerns are identified in the research underlying published articles. One way such concerns are expressed is through formal post-publication critiques submitted to the journal for editorial consideration and possible publication (hereafter PPCs).

Perspectives on Politics welcomes PPCs that generate constructive, scholarly discussion about work in its pages. We give utmost consideration to all concerns raised in PPCs and will correct the record when warranted. Publication, however, is reserved for PPCs that make a significant, independent contribution to a scholarly debate. In the remainder of this Editorial Note, we summarize the goals and principles of our PPC policy and outline what authors—both those submitting PPCs and those whose work is the subject of critique—can expect from this process.

Goals and Principles

Perspectives seeks to publish scholarship of the highest quality and to promote constructive discussion that advances knowledge in the discipline. PPCs are one way the journal supports that mission: they can deepen substantive and methodological debates, clarify points of disagreement, and—when warranted—help strengthen the integrity of the published record by bringing to light potential errors or ethical concerns.

In addition to these aims, fairness to all parties is essential, both to authors whose work is being critiqued and to authors who raise well-founded concerns. This requires professional and respectful engagement, a meaningful opportunity for the authors of the original work to respond, and appropriate recognition of PPC authors’ contributions.

We developed our PPC policy with these goals and principles in mind, and in accordance with guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (https://publicationethics.org). In what follows, we outline the scope of PPCs that Perspectives will consider, the criteria by which our editorial team evaluates them, and the process we follow.

Scope and Expectations

PPCs may address concerns about the reliability of a work published in Perspectives regarding its research design or analyses, research ethics, or other considerations about the validity of published research (PPCs may also raise concerns about the publication process. Following the Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) guidelines, issues related to publishing ethics must be addressed in specific ways, depending on the nature of the issue. Hence, we do not discuss such cases here (see COPE Council, 2021. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Handling of post-publication critiques — English. Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), https://doi.org/10.24318/o1VgCAih, publicationethics.org). To be considered for publication, PPCs must clearly articulate the concerns they raise, provide evidentiary support for all claims, and compellingly explain the implications of further dialogue for the field. Submissions should adhere to standards of professional and respectful engagement with the work under critique.

Image 1

Long description

At the top, a yellow rounded rectangle labeled ‘PPC received’ leads right to a purple rectangle ‘Initial editorial screen.’ Downward, a black diamond asks ‘Does the PPC meet the bar in terms of quality and relevance?’ No branches right to a red oval ‘Reject PPC. Case closed.’ Yes continues downward to another black diamond ‘Does the PPC adhere to principles of professionalism and academic integrity?’ No branches right to a purple rectangle ‘Ask authors to revise,’ then right to ‘Are sufficient changes made to correct?’ Yes returns left to the previous decision, No goes down to a red oval ‘Reject PPC. Case closed.’ If Yes, the flow continues down to a large black diamond ‘Editor and Editorial Board Member (hereafter Editorial Committee, EC) review the PPC: Is it a constructive, thorough, and well-supported critique related to an issue of sufficient importance?’ No branches right to a red oval ‘Reject PPC. Case closed.’ Yes continues down to a final black diamond ‘Does the PPC include concerns about publishing ethics?’ Yes branches right to a purple rectangle ‘Follow relevant COPE guidelines.’ No continues down to ‘Go to next page.’ All arrows are black, and the flow is strictly top-to-bottom with lateral branches for No decisions.

Image 2

Long description

The flowchart begins at the top with a box labeled ‘From previous page’ leading to ‘Send out for review.’ This connects to a diamond labeled ‘E C: Do reviews indicate the P P C raises valid concerns?’ with two branches: ‘No’ leads right to ‘Outcome 1: P P C does not make a valid critique that should be addressed,’ followed by ‘E C informs the author of the P P C that it has been rejected,’ ending with ‘Reject P P C. Case closed.’ The ‘Yes’ branch leads downward to ‘E C: Is the P P C's contribution significant enough for publication in Perspectives?’ If ‘No,’ it leads to ‘Outcome 2: P P C makes a valid critique that should be addressed but the contribution is not significant enough for publication in Perspectives,’ followed by ‘E C informs P P C author that the P C C has been rejected. P P C author is encouraged to publish the critique elsewhere, which can be cited in an eventual correction published in Perspectives.’ This splits into ‘E C invites original authors to respond,’ then ‘E C decides if the response should be peer-reviewed. After receiving reviews, if sought, E C makes a decision about the original article.’ This leads to ‘E C: Is amendment of original article needed?’ If ‘Yes,’ it goes to ‘Publish a correction or retraction acknowledging P P C author's contribution. Reject P P C. Case closed.’ If ‘No,’ it leads to ‘No correction or retraction issued. Reject P P C. Case closed.’ If the answer to the significance question is ‘Yes,’ it leads to ‘Outcome 3: P P C makes a valid critique and a significant contribution that can potentially be published in Perspectives,’ then ‘E C invites original authors to respond,’ followed by ‘E C decides if the response should be peer-reviewed. After receiving reviews, if sought, E C makes a decision about the original article as well as the P P C.’ This leads to ‘E C: Is amendment of original article needed?’ If ‘Yes,’ it goes to ‘Publish a correction or retraction,’ then ‘E C: Should P P C be published?’ If ‘No,’ it leads to ‘Publish correction. Reject P P C. Case closed.’ If ‘Yes,’ it leads to ‘E C: Should the response be published?’ If ‘No,’ it leads to ‘Publish P P C. Reject response. Case closed.’ If ‘Yes,’ it leads to ‘E C handles the review process until both pieces are published, ideally simultaneously,’ ending with ‘Publish P P C and response. Case closed.’ If at any point the response is not published, the flowchart ends with the appropriate rejection or publication outcome.

Importantly, Perspectives publishes PPCs only when they present a valid critique and also make a significant, independent contribution to debates in our discipline. While not all critiques of published articles are thus suitable to become publications in their own right, we strongly encourage readers to alert us to errors or other concerns that they encounter in work we have published, whether or not those concerns warrant publication as a PPC. The editorial team reviews all such concerns and, when appropriate, may pursue a correction or retraction. For a PPC submission, by contrast, authors must not simply identify an error, but also explain its broader implications for scholarship.

In keeping with our commitment to fairness, we believe that authors of valid PPCs should receive appropriate recognition for their contributions. Accordingly, when a correction or retraction results from a valid PPC, the published notice will formally acknowledge the contribution of the PPC authors, even if the PPC was not accepted for publication. When a PPC is valid but not of sufficient significance to publish, we will notify the PPC author and encourage them to post the critique as a working paper or seek publication in a venue specializing in post-publication commentary (such as Replication Research at https://www.uni-muenster.de/Ejournals/index.php/replicationresearch/index). In such cases, we will encourage the PPC author to pursue such options before the appearance of the correction to or retraction of the original article so that the posted critique can be cited in the notice of that correction or retraction.

Process

PPCs undergo an editorial review designed to ensure rigor, fairness, and, when needed, timely correction of the scholarly record. The flowchart accompanying our policy, which we include below, illustrates typical steps, though particular cases may vary.

First, the editorial team screens submissions for relevance, quality, and professional tone. Based on that review, we may request revisions to remove inappropriate or unsubstantiated material. If a PPC clears this initial screen, an editorial committee that includes an editorial board member assesses whether the paper raises a valid critique and whether it warrants further consideration. Suitable submissions may be sent out for external peer review. After receiving and assessing reviewer reports, the committee reaches one of three decisions: (1) reject the PPC because it neither raises a concern that warrants correction (or retraction) nor meets the journal’s threshold for publication; (2) deem it valid but decline to publish it (e.g., because the concern is too narrow or the PPC does not make an independent scholarly contribution), in which case we share it with the authors of the original article and request a response; or (3) proceed toward possible publication, in which case we also share the PPC with the authors of the original article and invite a response. When the third decision is reached, the response may be reviewed and revised, and the journal may publish the PPC with a response, publish the PPC without a response, or decide not to publish either the PPC or the response. When both the PPC and the response are deemed to merit publication, we aim to publish them together.

Concerns raised through PPCs may also lead the journal to consider corrections or retractions. Serious integrity issues are handled in consultation with the Perspectives Editorial Board Ethics Committee.