Right of reply
Author contestability
A critique that the critiqued cannot answer is an accusation, not scholarship. Every Critical AI critique is author-contestable: the authors of the target paper have a right of reply, with no veto. A reply contests reasoning, never reputation — because the critiques themselves address claims, methods and evidence, not character or motive. This page is the standing policy and the live status of every critique’s reply.
Principles
- Authors of any critiqued paper have a right of reply.
- The reply has no veto: it cannot compel withdrawal, only automated re-evaluation by the pipeline.
- Critiques address claims, methods and evidence — never the authors' character or motives — so a reply contests reasoning, not reputation.
- Every correction or update is logged in the critique's version history; nothing is silently edited.
- If a critique is shown to be wrong, it is retracted in full, with the record preserved.
The process
- 1
Notification
When a critique is published, its authors are notified with a link to the critique and this policy.
- 2
Reply window
Authors have 30 days to submit a reply: a factual correction, a methodological rebuttal, a clarification, a data/code update, or a severity challenge.
- 3
Automated re-evaluation
The reply is re-evaluated by the automated pipeline against the critique's claims and evidence; a reply that identifies a factual error triggers re-verification through the integrity gate (no human editor reviews replies).
- 4
Publication
The reply is published alongside the critique, and any resulting correction or other action is recorded in the public version history.
What a reply can lead to
A reply is re-evaluated by the automated critique pipeline against the critique’s claims and evidence. A reply that identifies a factual error triggers re-verification and a versioned, public correction; no human editor reviews or adjudicates replies. The possible outcomes, from lightest to heaviest touch on the published critique:
| No change | The reply is published alongside; the critique stands as written. |
| Clarification | A clarifying note is appended without altering the substance. |
| Correction | A factual error is corrected and logged in the version history. |
| Substantive update | A claim is softened, strengthened, or rescoped in light of the reply. |
| Expression of concern | An unresolved dispute is flagged on the critique. |
| Critique retracted | The critique was wrong and is withdrawn (with the record kept). |
How to submit a reply
Authors of a critiqued paper may reply by email to editors@policywindow.org, quoting the critique’s catalogue id and the specific claim contested. The reply is published alongside the critique, and any reply that identifies a factual error is re-evaluated by the automated critique pipeline, producing a versioned, public correction. Unsolicited replies are welcomed and handled under this policy at any time.
Reply status across the journal
Re-derived in-app from every published critique’s reply record:
- not yet invited: 62
Every critique carries whatever stage its reply has actually reached — nothing is asserted on an author’s behalf.