Post-Publication Discussion Policy

Aksioreligia : Jurnal Studi Keislaman welcomes scholarly comments, critiques, and responses concerning published articles from readers, authors, and the academic community. Post-publication discussion aims to deepen understanding, examine arguments, and help maintain an accurate scholarly record. This policy forms part of the journal’s commitment to publication ethics and is implemented with reference to the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Scope of Discussion

Discussion may address research approaches, methods, the use of sources, interpretations of data or texts, arguments, conclusions, or the implications of an article. Comments may also identify errors or information requiring clarification.

Within Islamic studies, differences in interpretation, schools of thought, and scholarly perspectives are part of academic dialogue. Responses must engage with the substance of the work through reasoned arguments and relevant sources while respecting diverse perspectives.

2. Submission of Comments

Comments should be submitted through the journal’s official contact details provided on the contact page. Contributors should provide their identity and contact information, the title or DOI of the article, the passages or issues being addressed, and supporting evidence or references where appropriate. Relevant interests or relationships concerning the article or its authors must be disclosed.

Comments must be clear, proportionate, and focused on scholarly issues. Personal attacks, discriminatory language, unsupported accusations, and promotional material are not acceptable. Anonymous reports concerning article integrity may be assessed under the journal’s Allegations of Misconduct policy when the information is sufficiently specific and verifiable.

3. Editorial Assessment

Editors assess comments for relevance, clarity, supporting arguments, and their contribution to understanding the article. Where necessary, editors may request revisions, further clarification, or assessment by an appropriately qualified expert. Editors with a conflict of interest must not participate in the decision.

Not all comments will be published. Decisions are based on scholarly value and relevance to readers, rather than agreement with the views of the authors or editors. Substantiated criticism will not be rejected merely because it challenges a published article.

4. Opportunity for Authors to Respond

Where a comment requires clarification from the article’s authors, the editor will forward it to them and provide an opportunity to respond within a specified timeframe. Responses should address the substantive issues directly and provide relevant evidence or sources.

Comments and responses may be edited for clarity without altering their substantive arguments. An author’s failure to respond does not, in itself, prevent publication of a comment that has been assessed as suitable.

5. Publication and Traceability

Accepted comments may be published as scholarly correspondence or another publication format determined by the editor, accompanied by the authors’ response where available. Comments and responses will be linked to the article under discussion so that readers can follow the exchange in context.

Publication of a comment does not imply the journal’s endorsement of every view expressed. Contributors remain responsible for the accuracy of their information and arguments. The original article will not be amended solely because alternative scholarly interpretations have been presented.

6. Follow-Up on Errors and Allegations of Misconduct

If a discussion identifies an error that requires an amendment to the article, the editor will assess whether a correction or another action is warranted under the journal’s provisions for maintaining the publication record. Substantive changes will not be made silently; they will be documented and linked to the affected article.

Comments containing allegations of research or publication misconduct will be handled under the journal’s Allegations of Misconduct policy. Scholarly discussion does not replace the assessment of suspected misconduct, and criticism of an article does not, in itself, establish an ethical violation.