Spectrum of Operational Research (SOR) encourages constructive academic debate and welcomes scholarly correspondence concerning articles published in the journal. Academic discussion contributes to the critical evaluation, interpretation, development, and advancement of published research.
Correspondence should be relevant, evidence-based, professionally expressed, and focused on the scientific, methodological, mathematical, theoretical, computational, empirical, or practical aspects of the work being discussed.
Readers may submit scholarly comments, critiques, clarifications, or other substantive observations concerning articles published in SOR. Correspondence should clearly identify the article being discussed and provide sufficient reasoning, evidence, references, or analysis to support the points raised.
The journal may subject submitted correspondence to editorial assessment and, where appropriate, independent review before determining whether it is suitable for publication.
Where correspondence contains substantive criticism of a published article, the journal will normally provide the author(s) of the original article with a reasonable opportunity to respond before the correspondence is published.
Authors have the right to reply but do not have the right to prevent the publication of legitimate scholarly criticism solely because they disagree with it or consider it unfavorable. Authors may choose not to respond.
Where both the correspondence and an author response are accepted, the journal may publish them together or otherwise link them in a manner that allows readers to understand the academic exchange.
The decision to publish correspondence and any associated response rests with the responsible editor. Decisions will be based on scholarly relevance, evidentiary support, clarity, professional conduct, and the contribution of the correspondence to legitimate academic discussion.
The journal may decline correspondence that is unsupported, substantially repetitive, irrelevant to the published work, defamatory, discriminatory, abusive, threatening, or otherwise inconsistent with professional scholarly communication or the journal's editorial and ethical standards.
Publication of correspondence does not necessarily indicate that the journal, its editors, or the Publisher endorse the position expressed by either party to the academic discussion.
Legitimate differences in scientific interpretation, methodological choices, theoretical perspectives, or conclusions will normally be treated as matters of academic debate rather than publication misconduct.
However, where correspondence raises a credible concern involving possible fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulation of the peer-review process, or another potential breach of publication ethics, the matter may be considered separately in accordance with the journal's Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Unethical Behaviour .
Academic correspondence forms part of the journal's broader approach to discussion and evaluation of published research. Further information concerning post-publication discussion and matters that may require clarification or correction of the scholarly record is provided in the journal's Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections policy.
