POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSION

STORAGE: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik dan Ilmu Komputer welcomes evidence based scholarly discussion of the articles that it has published. A discussion of this kind helps the readers, the authors, and the journal to understand published work better.

Valued Contributions

Contribution	Examples
Questions about methods	Questions about the experimental setup, the model, the algorithm, the simulation, the design assumptions, or the analysis.
Alternative interpretations	A different reading of the findings, supported by evidence.
Replication results	Results from a replication or a reproduction of the work with other data, other conditions, other sites, or other hardware or software.
Practical application	Comments on the use of the findings in engineering, design, or software practice.
Other observations	Other substantive observations that are relevant to the article.

Choose the Route That Fits Your Purpose

What you want to do	Where to go
Comment on the method, the analysis, or the interpretation of a published article, or report a replication	This page
Point out an error that needs a correction	Correction and Retraction
Report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, or other misconduct	Allegations of Misconduct
Submit new research in response to an article	Author Guidelines and Peer Review Process

1Submitting a Scholarly Comment

Send the comment by email to the editorial office at jurnal.storage@gmail.com, with the subject line below. The comment can be written in Indonesian or in English. It must be signed with the full name, the affiliation, and the email address of the person who submits it.

Subject line of the email

Scholarly Comment: [Article Title and DOI]

The comment must include

No.	Content
1	The title and the DOI of the article.
2	The specific issue that is raised.
3	The reasoning or the evidence that supports the comment.
4	The relevant references.
5	Any competing interest, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy.

Guidelines for writing the comment

No.	Guideline
1	Keep the comment concise and focused.
2	Criticize the work and not the personal characteristics of the authors.
3	Separate what is a proven error, what is an open question, and what is a difference of interpretation.
4	Leave out confidential information, proprietary project data, and details that identify participants, unless they are essential.

2Editorial Consideration and Author Response

Topic	Practice
Assessment	The editors assess the relevance, the clarity, the evidence, and the contribution of the comment. They may consult independent specialists when this is needed.
Response of the authors	The authors of the article may be invited to respond. Their right to respond does not allow them to decide whether a valid criticism is considered.
Disagreement	Disagreement alone does not guarantee publication.
External platforms	A concern that was raised on an external platform may be examined once it is brought to the attention of the journal.
Integrity concerns	A person who reports a credible concern about integrity does not need to have a comment published first. The concern is assessed under the Allegations of Misconduct policy.

3Publication and Assessment Status

Topic	Practice
Labeling and linking	Comments and replies that are approved are clearly labeled and linked to the related article.
Peer review status	Correspondence that was assessed by the editors is not presented as having passed the standard peer review.
New research	New research that is submitted in response to an article follows the Peer Review Process.
Publication	Publication is not automatic, and the journal does not promise a fixed timeline.
Public criticism and reuse	This procedure does not limit lawful public criticism, or the reuse of articles under the CC BY 4.0 license, as described on the Licensing page.

Related Policies and Enquiries

Topic	Page
Suspected misconduct	Allegations of Misconduct
Errors that need a change in the record	Correction and Retraction
General standards of conduct	Publication Ethics