Post-Publication Discussion Policy

1. General Principles

Khazanah: Journal of Islamic Education and Science supports open, constructive, objective, and responsible scholarly discussion following the publication of an article. Post-publication discussion is an important part of scientific development, the examination of research findings, the correction of scholarly errors, and the improvement of academic publishing quality.

The journal provides readers, researchers, academics, and other interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments, criticisms, clarifications, or questions concerning published articles.

All comments must be based on scholarly argumentation, relevant evidence, and academic communication ethics. Post-publication discussion must not be used to engage in personal attacks, intimidation, the dissemination of misleading information, or unsupported allegations.

2. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussion may address:

  1. Criticism of research methodology, study design, analytical techniques, or interpretation of findings.

  2. Questions concerning the clarity of data, research instruments, procedures, or the basis for conclusions.

  3. Differences in theoretical, conceptual, or methodological interpretation relevant to the article.

  4. Additional evidence or references that may enrich the scholarly discussion.

  5. Corrections to factual errors, citations, references, tables, figures, or other information in the published article.

  6. Questions concerning research limitations and opportunities for future research.

  7. Reasonable concerns regarding data integrity, research ethics, authorship, or possible violations of publication ethics.

All discussions must focus on the scholarly substance and academic relevance of the published article.

3. Submission of Comments

Readers and interested parties may submit comments through the journal's official email address or the editorial communication channel provided on the OJS website.

A submission should include, where applicable:

  1. The title of the article being discussed.

  2. The article's author names and relevant bibliographic information, including the DOI if available.

  3. The commentator's name, institutional affiliation, and contact email address.

  4. A clear description of the comment, criticism, question, or correction.

  5. Supporting evidence, data, references, or other relevant sources.

  6. A declaration of any conflicts of interest relevant to the comment.

The journal may request additional information if a submission is insufficiently clear for evaluation. Anonymous comments may be considered when their substance and supporting evidence are adequate, particularly when they concern possible research integrity or publication ethics violations.

4. Editorial Assessment of Comments

All comments received will be assessed by an editor or a person designated by the Editor-in-Chief before a decision is made regarding publication or further action.

The assessment may consider:

  1. The relevance of the comment to the journal's scope and the article concerned.

  2. The scholarly merit and clarity of the argument.

  3. The adequacy of supporting evidence and references.

  4. Compliance with academic communication ethics.

  5. Potential conflicts of interest and relevant legal or privacy concerns.

  6. The need for clarification or independent expert advice.

The editor may accept a comment, request revisions, seek clarification, or reject it for documented editorial reasons. A comment must not be rejected solely because it disagrees with the article's conclusions or its authors, provided that it is presented in a scholarly manner and meets the applicable requirements.

If a comment involves the handling editor or creates a conflict of interest, the matter will be assigned to another independent editor.

5. Authors' Right to Respond

When a comment raises substantive concerns about an article's methodology, data, analysis, interpretation, or conclusions, the journal may provide the article's authors with a reasonable opportunity to respond.

An author response should:

  1. Address the substance of the criticism directly and academically.

  2. Include supporting arguments, data, or references where appropriate.

  3. Use professional language and respect the commentator.

  4. Avoid personal attacks, intimidation, or statements unrelated to the scholarly issue.

The journal may publish the comment and the author's response together or separately, depending on editorial considerations and the availability of the relevant material. Authors do not automatically have the right to prevent the publication of criticism that meets the journal's editorial criteria, and commentators are not automatically entitled to publication without editorial assessment.

6. Ethical Standards for Discussion

All participants in post-publication discussion must uphold integrity, honesty, objectivity, and respect for members of the academic community.

Comments must not contain:

  1. Insults, personal attacks, discrimination, threats, or intimidation.

  2. Unsupported allegations of ethical misconduct.

  3. Deliberately fabricated or misleading data, quotations, or references.

  4. Confidential information or personal data disclosed without a legitimate basis.

  5. Material unrelated to the scholarly issue under discussion.

  6. Commercial promotion or other content unrelated to academic discussion.

The editor may request revisions to comments that do not meet these standards or reject them with an appropriate explanation.

7. Follow-up on Errors or Suspected Misconduct

If post-publication discussion reveals a possible scholarly error or ethical violation, the journal will assess the matter based on the available evidence.

Possible follow-up actions include:

  1. Requesting clarification from the authors or relevant parties.

  2. Requesting additional explanations or evidence to verify the concern.

  3. Seeking an independent expert assessment where necessary.

  4. Publishing a correction if an error is identified and can be appropriately corrected.

  5. Publishing an expression of concern when a serious issue remains under investigation and readers need to be informed.

  6. Retracting an article when sufficient grounds exist under the journal's correction and retraction policy.

  7. Referring suspected misconduct requiring formal investigation to the relevant institution.

Editorial decisions must take into account the seriousness of the issue, its impact on the reliability of the article, the available evidence, and the responses of the relevant parties. An unverified comment does not, by itself, establish that an author has committed misconduct.

8. Publication of Comments and Transparency

Post-publication comments accepted for publication must undergo editorial assessment and, where necessary, additional scholarly review.

The journal may publish comments in the form of letters to the editor, scholarly commentary, or another format appropriate to its publication policies.

When a comment and an author's response are published, the journal will ensure that both are linked to the article under discussion wherever possible. Bibliographic information and metadata must be presented accurately so that readers can locate and follow the discussion.

Publication of a comment does not automatically change the status of the article being discussed. Any change to the publication record, including a correction or retraction, must follow the journal's applicable editorial procedures.

9. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

The journal will protect information that is not intended for public disclosure and restrict access to editorial communications to authorized individuals.

Commentators, authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of the discussion. Editors will take such conflicts into account when assigning and evaluating comments.

Confidentiality must be maintained while also considering scholarly transparency, personal data protection, legal obligations, and the integrity of the editorial process.

10. Editorial Decisions and Policy Review

Decisions to publish or reject post-publication comments rest with the editor in accordance with the journal's policies. Such decisions must be based on scholarly relevance, the quality of the argument, supporting evidence, ethical communication, and consistency with publication requirements.

Parties who have concerns about the handling of a comment may submit a complaint through the journal's official channel. The complaint will be reviewed by a person who has no relevant conflict of interest, in accordance with the journal's complaints and appeals policy.

This post-publication discussion policy will be reviewed periodically to ensure continued alignment with developments in scholarly publication ethics and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

11. Ethical Guidance

This policy is based on the principles of transparency, accountability, scholarly correction, and publication integrity, with reference to relevant scholarly publication ethics guidance.

Khazanah: Journal of Islamic Education and Science is committed to facilitating responsible scholarly discussion as part of its efforts to maintain the quality, credibility, and continued development of academic knowledge.