Post-Publication Discussion
Religious · Publication Ethics
Post-Publication Discussion
Religious: Jurnal Studi Agama-Agama dan Lintas Budaya welcomes substantive discussion of its published articles. Readers and authors may raise questions, offer evidence-based criticism, propose alternative interpretations, or identify errors that require editorial attention.
Publication does not close scholarly debate. The journal supports respectful, transparent discussion that advances understanding and helps maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.
On this page
1. Scope of Discussion
Post-publication discussion should relate directly to an identifiable article published in the journal. Relevant contributions may address:
- The interpretation of findings, sources, or theoretical arguments.
- Research design, methods, analytical procedures, or limitations.
- Relevant evidence or scholarship that may affect the article’s conclusions.
- Alternative explanations or comparative perspectives.
- Factual inaccuracies, unclear statements, or questions about reproducibility.
- Ethical or publication integrity concerns requiring editorial examination.
Disagreement with an article’s theoretical position, religious interpretation, or conclusions is not by itself evidence of error or misconduct. Critical discussion should explain its reasoning and engage with the published argument fairly.
2. How to Submit a Comment
Comments should be sent to the editorial office through the journal’s Contact page. Use the subject line “Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title]”.
Please include:
- The article title, author names, and DOI or article URL.
- The commenter’s name, affiliation where applicable, and contact details.
- A clear explanation of the point being raised, identifying relevant passages, pages, tables, or figures.
- Supporting references, evidence, or analysis where appropriate.
- Any relevant conflicts of interest.
- Whether the submission is intended for public discussion or confidential editorial consideration.
Comments should be concise, focused, and sufficiently detailed to allow assessment. There is no fixed expiry date for raising a substantive concern about a published article.
Individuals reporting sensitive concerns may request confidentiality. Anonymous reports will be considered when they contain specific and credible information, although anonymous allegations are not automatically eligible for publication as scholarly commentary.
3. Editorial Assessment
An editor without a relevant conflict of interest will assess the submission for relevance, accuracy, clarity, supporting evidence, and scholarly value. The journal may request clarification or revision and may consult an independent specialist when necessary.
Comments must address the work rather than attack individuals. The journal will not publish harassment, discriminatory language, unsupported personal accusations, promotional material, or unnecessary disclosure of confidential information.
A critical or unfavourable assessment of a published article will not be rejected merely because it challenges the authors or the journal. Equally, submission of a comment does not guarantee publication.
Where a message combines inappropriate wording with a credible substantive concern, the editor may request revisions to the wording while examining the underlying evidence separately.
4. Author Responses
Authors will normally be invited to respond to substantive comments concerning their article. The editorial office will provide the relevant points and specify a reasonable response period appropriate to their complexity.
Responses should address the issues directly, provide supporting evidence where needed, and acknowledge any established errors or limitations. Responses are subject to the same standards of relevance, accuracy, and respectful language as the original comment.
Authors may request additional time with an explanation. Failure to respond does not establish that a criticism is correct and does not automatically prevent publication of a comment that meets the journal’s standards. Authors do not have a veto over legitimate scholarly criticism.
5. Publication of Discussions
Accepted contributions may be published as a Comment, Author Response, or Editorial Note, as appropriate. These are post-publication correspondence categories and are distinguished from original research articles and scholarly review articles.
Published discussions will identify and link to the article concerned. Where feasible, the article page will also link to the discussion so that readers can follow the exchange.
Comments and responses undergo editorial assessment and may receive independent expert review where needed. They will not be described as externally peer-reviewed unless that process has taken place.
The journal may publish a comment and response together or separately. Further exchanges may be considered when they contribute material new evidence or analysis. Repetitive exchanges may be closed with an explanation.
Discussion on external scholarly platforms may also inform editorial assessment. Readers seeking formal action should notify the editorial office directly, as the journal cannot guarantee that it will identify every discussion elsewhere.
6. Errors and Integrity Concerns
Comments identifying possible errors or misconduct will be assessed under the journal’s relevant policies. Confidential allegations will not automatically be published as discussion contributions.
- Specific errors may require a correction when the article’s principal findings remain reliable.
- Significant unresolved concerns may require an expression of concern while further examination is undertaken.
- Established problems affecting the reliability or ethical integrity of the work may require retraction or other appropriate action.
Publishing a comment or an author response does not replace a formal correction or other editorial notice when the published record requires amendment.
Decisions will follow the journal’s Allegations of Research Misconduct and Correction and Retraction policies. Scholarly disagreement alone is not a basis for retraction.
7. Communication and Appeals
The editorial office will acknowledge submissions where contact details are available and communicate its decision or requests for further information. Assessment time depends on the complexity of the issues and the need for author responses or independent advice.
A person who believes that a decision involved a factual error, a material procedural problem, or overlooked evidence may request reconsideration through the Contact page. The request should identify the decision and provide specific reasons and supporting information.
Appeals will be considered by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to the publisher for independent handling.