Post-Publication Discussion Policy

Journal of Computer Networks, Architecture and High Performance Computing (CNAHPC)

1. Policy Statement

The Journal of Computer Networks, Architecture and High Performance Computing (CNAHPC) supports open, constructive, and evidence-based scholarly discussion of published research.

The journal recognizes that independent verification, experimental replication, algorithm comparison, system performance evaluation, and technological advances may generate findings that support, refine, or challenge previously published conclusions.

Post-publication discussions are managed in accordance with COPE principles, editorial independence, transparency, and academic integrity.

2. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion may address research methodology, dataset validity, experimental design, algorithm implementation, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and the consistency of conclusions with the available evidence.

For computer networking and high-performance computing research, discussions may examine hardware configurations, software environments, testing protocols, latency, throughput, scalability, energy efficiency, and benchmark reproducibility.

For artificial intelligence and machine learning research, discussions may address dataset partitioning, data leakage, model validation, class imbalance, performance metrics, statistical significance, and the reliability of comparative claims.

All submissions must be supported by scientific reasoning, relevant references, or verifiable evidence.

3. Submission of Comments and Critiques

Readers, researchers, academics, technology professionals, and other interested parties may submit comments, critiques, clarifications, or replication findings concerning published articles.

Submissions should be sent to:

Editorial Contact: publikasi@itscience.org

Each submission should identify the relevant article and provide a clear description of the issue, supporting arguments, and appropriate evidence.

Supporting materials may include experimental results, source code, testing configurations, datasets that may lawfully be shared, or relevant scholarly references.

All communications must remain professional and free from personal attacks.

4. Editorial Assessment and Independent Review

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will conduct an initial assessment of the submission's relevance, scientific merit, and supporting evidence.

When necessary, CNAHPC may invite independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant computational discipline.

Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Submissions that lack sufficient evidence, fall outside the journal's scope, or contain unsupported personal allegations may be declined.

5. Authors' Right to Respond

Authors whose published work is the subject of a post-publication discussion will normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Responses may include methodological clarifications, experimental configurations, algorithm parameters, software documentation, additional analyses, or relevant supporting evidence.

Where appropriate and feasible, authors may provide source code, datasets, or technical information supporting the reproducibility of their findings, subject to legal, licensing, privacy, and information security restrictions.

The editorial team will assess the critique and response objectively.

6. Publication of Post-Publication Contributions

Submissions meeting the journal's editorial standards may be published as Letters to the Editor, scholarly commentaries, author responses, or other appropriate forms of academic communication.

Published discussions will be linked to the original article whenever technically feasible.

Publication of a commentary does not necessarily indicate editorial endorsement of the views expressed.

7. Reproducibility and Research Verification

JCNAHPC encourages methodological transparency and the disclosure of sufficient technical information to facilitate independent research evaluation.

Relevant information may include software versions, hardware specifications, algorithm parameters, dataset partitioning, validation procedures, and experimental configurations.

Unsuccessful replication attempts should be evaluated in relation to the comparability of experimental conditions before conclusions regarding research reliability are drawn.

Authors are not required to disclose confidential information, protected datasets, security credentials, or technical details whose disclosure would create disproportionate risks.

8. Suspected Research and Publication Misconduct

When post-publication discussion identifies credible concerns involving plagiarism, data fabrication, benchmark manipulation, falsified experiments, unauthorized dataset use, or other serious ethical violations, the matter will be addressed under the journal's Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy.

Allegations must be assessed using verifiable evidence and must not be treated as established findings before appropriate examination.

9. Corrections and Retractions

When post-publication discussions reveal material errors or serious concerns affecting the reliability of an article, JCNAHPC may issue a correction, Expression of Concern, or retraction under its Correction and Retraction Policy.

Editorial action will be proportionate to the seriousness of the issue and the strength of the available evidence.

10. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

All participants involved in the evaluation of post-publication submissions must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by personal relationships, institutional affiliations, academic competition, commercial interests, or other inappropriate considerations.

11. Confidentiality and Fair Treatment

JCNAHPC will protect confidential information and unpublished materials to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with applicable requirements.

Authors and contributors will be treated fairly and given appropriate opportunities to provide clarification.

The journal does not tolerate intimidation, personal attacks, or knowingly unsupported accusations.

12. Documentation and Appeals

The editorial office will maintain records of submissions, supporting evidence, author responses, reviews, and editorial decisions.

Individuals who believe an editorial decision involved a material factual or procedural error may submit an appeal to publikasi@itscience.org, accompanied by relevant supporting evidence.

Where feasible, appeals will be reviewed by an editor or independent party who was not directly involved in the original decision.

13. Commitment to Scholarly Transparency

CNAHPC recognizes post-publication discussion as an essential component of continuous scientific evaluation.

Through this policy, the journal aims to support open scientific debate, strengthen research reproducibility, facilitate the correction of published errors, and maintain confidence in computer science and computational research.