The Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) encourages constructive scholarly discussion and feedback on articles after publication. Post-publication discussion provides an opportunity for readers, researchers, and authors to exchange perspectives, clarify research findings, and contribute to the continued development of scientific knowledge.

Post-publication discussion supports the exchange of scientific ideas and enables readers to engage critically with published research. Contributions should be relevant to the article and provide meaningful scholarly insight.

Discussions may address:

• Interpretation and implications of published findings.
• Research methodologies, analytical approaches, and theoretical perspectives.
• Clarification of arguments, assumptions, or conclusions.
• Alternative interpretations and complementary perspectives.
• Suggestions for future research and further scholarly investigation.
• Questions that encourage academic debate and knowledge development.

Readers wishing to contribute to post-publication discussion may contact the Editorial Office of the Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA). Submissions should identify the published article, clearly explain the purpose of the discussion, and present relevant arguments supported by appropriate evidence or scholarly references.

Comments should be concise, focused on the scholarly content, and written in clear academic language. Authors should include their name, institutional affiliation, and contact information when submitting a contribution for editorial consideration.

When appropriate, the original authors may be invited to respond to comments or questions concerning their published work. Such responses should address the substantive points raised, provide relevant explanations, and maintain a professional and evidence-based tone.

The journal may consider publishing comments and author responses when they contribute meaningful insight to the scholarly record and satisfy its editorial requirements.

The Editorial Office evaluates proposed discussions for relevance, scholarly contribution, clarity, supporting evidence, and compliance with the journal's editorial standards. The Editor-in-Chief may consult appropriate subject experts when additional academic assessment is necessary.

The journal reserves the right to decline submissions that are irrelevant, unsupported, repetitive, defamatory, disrespectful, or inconsistent with scholarly communication standards.

All contributions should be based on sound reasoning, verifiable evidence, and relevant scholarly literature. Authors and readers are encouraged to distinguish clearly between established findings, interpretations, and opinions. Assertions should be presented objectively, with appropriate references where necessary, to support meaningful and productive academic discussion.

All participants are expected to engage in discussion respectfully, objectively, and professionally. Criticism should focus on scholarly arguments, methods, evidence, and interpretations rather than personal characteristics. Harassment, discriminatory language, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations are not acceptable.

Post-publication discussion is managed independently of commercial, financial, and personal interests. Editorial decisions concerning the consideration and publication of scholarly comments are based on academic relevance, quality, fairness, and the journal's established policies. The Journal of Decision Support Systems and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (JODESMA) is committed to fostering an open, constructive, and responsible scholarly environment.