Evidence-based questions, clarifications, interpretations, and scholarly critique.

JICE welcomes reasoned, evidence-based contributions concerning research previously published in the journal. Appropriate topics include:

• Methods and technical procedures. Critical examination of research design, engineering assumptions, measurement methods, experimental procedures, or numerical simulations.
• Data and interpretation. Discussion of analyses, figures, calculations, results, conclusions, or alternative interpretations supported by relevant evidence.
• Clarification and reproducibility. Requests for clarification of reported data, standards, modelling parameters, or procedures affecting the understanding or reproducibility of the study.
• Errors, limitations, and wider implications. Identification of potential inconsistencies or limitations and discussion of their implications for civil engineering research or professional practice.

Contributions must remain relevant, specific, academically constructive, and respectful. Personal attacks, discriminatory or defamatory statements, confidential information disclosed without authorization, and allegations unsupported by reasonable evidence are not acceptable.

Contact the editor with a specific article reference and supporting evidence.

Readers, researchers, and authors may submit comments or correspondence directly to the JICE editorial office. To facilitate an efficient assessment, each submission should include:

• The title, DOI or stable URL, and other identifying details of the published article concerned.
• A concise description of the scientific question, criticism, or requested clarification, with specific references to the relevant data, table, figure, method, or conclusion.
• Supporting evidence, calculations, relevant references, or other documentation where available.
• The contributor's full name, institutional affiliation, contact details, and declaration of any relevant competing interests.

Contributors requesting confidential handling of sensitive concerns should state the reasons when contacting the editor. The journal will consider such requests and protect confidential information to the extent reasonably possible, while recognizing that a meaningful assessment may require seeking explanations from the parties concerned.

Correspondence is screened for relevance, evidence, fairness, and scientific merit.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will assess submitted correspondence for relevance to the published article, scholarly significance, factual support, clarity, appropriate tone, and suitability for publication.

The editorial team may ask for revisions, clarification, or additional evidence. When justified by the technical complexity or significance of a critique, an independent subject specialist may be consulted. Such consultation is not automatically required for every comment.

Editors must disclose and manage any relevant conflict of interest. Correspondence may be declined when it lacks a substantive scientific basis, contains inappropriate language, duplicates an adequately resolved discussion, or falls outside the journal's scope. Editorial judgments must reflect the merit of the arguments, not whether those arguments agree with the conclusions of the original article.

Original authors are normally offered an opportunity to clarify substantive points.

When a substantive critique is considered suitable for discussion, the editorial office will normally invite the corresponding author of the original article to submit a response or clarification. The editor will communicate an appropriate response deadline, taking account of the nature and complexity of the issues raised.

Authors are encouraged to respond directly to the scientific questions and to provide relevant explanations, data, references, or supporting evidence. When appropriate, the editorial office may facilitate a structured exchange between the contributor and the original authors.

If the original authors decline to respond or do not respond within the communicated period, the editor may proceed with an editorial decision on the critique. The absence of a response does not, by itself, establish that the original article is incorrect.

Accepted correspondence may be published and linked to the original research.

Scholarly critiques and authors' responses that are accepted by the editorial team may be published through the JICE website as letters to the editor, editorial correspondence, commentaries, or other suitable notices. The form of publication will depend on the nature of the material and the journal's available publication workflow.

Where technically feasible, the correspondence will be linked to the original article so that readers can locate relevant discussion alongside the published research. The editorial office will seek to publish related critiques and author responses together or in a clearly connected manner.

Publication of a critique does not mean that JICE has concluded the original article is invalid. Likewise, publishing an author's response does not signify editorial endorsement of every assertion made in the response. The journal may conclude an exchange when its substantive questions have been adequately addressed.

Formal errors and ethical allegations follow the appropriate journal policies.

If post-publication correspondence identifies an error that may affect the accuracy, interpretation, or reliability of an article, the editor will consider whether a formal correction, expression of concern, or retraction is warranted. Such actions are assessed under JICE's established Correction and Retraction Policy.

Concerns indicating possible fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, peer-review manipulation, or other serious misconduct will be referred for consideration under the Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy. A discussion submission is not, by itself, proof of misconduct; any editorial action must be based on an appropriate examination of the available evidence.

Ordinary scholarly disagreement, justified differences in interpretation, and correctable errors must be distinguished from allegations of misconduct. The journal will use proportionate procedures relevant to the concern raised.

The journal documents its handling of scholarly discussions and editorial actions.

JICE is committed to treating contributors and original authors fairly and to maintaining appropriate records of correspondence, editorial assessments, declarations of competing interests, and resulting decisions. Confidential information will be protected to the extent appropriate under the journal's ethical responsibilities.

The journal regards constructive post-publication critique as a continuing responsibility of scholarly publishing. This policy will be reviewed periodically in light of journal practices and recognized guidance, including the COPE Core Practices and COPE guidance on handling post-publication critiques.