Post-Publication Discussion Policy

Post-Publication Discussion Policy


The Journal of Quality Assurance in Islamic Education (JQAIE) is committed to promoting open, critical, constructive, and evidence-based scholarly dialogue concerning articles published in the journal. The journal recognizes that scientific knowledge develops through continuous evaluation, academic discussion, methodological scrutiny, and the exchange of diverse scholarly perspectives.

JQAIE encourages researchers, academics, practitioners, readers, and other members of the scholarly community to engage in post-publication discussions that contribute to the improvement of research quality, scientific understanding, and publication integrity.

This policy is guided by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and internationally recognized standards of transparency, accountability, and responsible scholarly communication.

1. Purpose and Scope

The Post-Publication Discussion Policy establishes procedures for submitting, evaluating, responding to, and publishing scholarly comments or concerns regarding articles previously published in JQAIE.

The objectives of this policy are to:

  1. Facilitate constructive academic dialogue concerning published research.

  2. Encourage critical evaluation of research methodologies, theoretical frameworks, data interpretation, and scientific conclusions.

  3. Provide opportunities for authors to clarify, defend, or reconsider their published findings.

  4. Promote transparency and accountability in scholarly communication.

  5. Identify potential errors, methodological limitations, or concerns affecting the reliability of published research.

  6. Maintain the accuracy, credibility, and integrity of the scholarly record.

This policy applies to all articles published in JQAIE, including original research articles, literature reviews, conceptual studies, and other scholarly contributions within the fields of Islamic psychology, psychology, and behavioral sciences.

2. Forms of Post-Publication Discussion

JQAIE facilitates post-publication scholarly discussions through several mechanisms:

A. Letter to the Editor

Readers and researchers may submit formal academic correspondence addressing specific aspects of a published article.

A Letter to the Editor may include:

  • Methodological criticism or suggestions for improving research procedures.

  • Questions concerning research design, sampling, measurement instruments, or statistical analysis.

  • Clarification requests regarding theoretical frameworks or research findings.

  • Alternative interpretations of empirical results.

  • Identification of possible inaccuracies, inconsistencies, or limitations.

  • Relevant scientific evidence that contributes to further discussion.

Letters must focus on scholarly issues and should not contain personal criticism or unsupported accusations.

B. Author Response

Authors of the original article are entitled to provide a formal response to substantive comments, questions, or criticisms raised by readers.

Author responses should address the relevant academic concerns clearly, respectfully, and with appropriate scientific justification.

Where necessary, authors may provide additional methodological explanations, references, supporting analyses, or clarifications concerning the published findings.

C. Scientific Rebuttal or Scholarly Commentary

Substantive academic critiques supported by theoretical arguments, empirical evidence, methodological analysis, or new research findings may be considered for publication as independent scholarly commentaries or rebuttal articles.

Such submissions may undergo independent peer review to assess their scientific relevance, accuracy, originality, and contribution to scholarly discourse.

D. Corrections and Clarifications

When post-publication discussion identifies factual inaccuracies, reporting errors, or other issues requiring formal clarification, JQAIE may initiate appropriate editorial procedures under its Corrections and Retractions Policy.

3. Submission Criteria and Requirements

All post-publication discussions submitted to JQAIE must satisfy the following academic and ethical requirements:

  1. Relevance: The discussion must directly address an article published in JQAIE.

  2. Academic Substance: Comments must focus on scientific issues, including research methodology, theoretical analysis, data interpretation, research instruments, or the validity of findings.

  3. Supporting Evidence: Arguments should be supported by credible scientific references, empirical evidence, methodological reasoning, or relevant comparative analyses.

  4. Objectivity: Criticism must be presented fairly, accurately, and without intentional misrepresentation of the original research.

  5. Professional Language: Submissions must use respectful, objective, and academically appropriate language.

  6. Research Integrity: Comments must not contain plagiarism, fabricated evidence, defamatory statements, discriminatory language, or personal attacks.

  7. Transparency: Contributors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest that could influence their commentary.

  8. Originality: Submissions intended for formal publication must represent original scholarly contributions and comply with the journal's publication ethics requirements.

JQAIE reserves the right to decline comments that are irrelevant, unsupported, abusive, repetitive, or inconsistent with responsible academic discourse.

4. Submission Procedures and Timeframe

Post-publication comments, letters, and requests for clarification may be submitted through the journal's official editorial communication channels.

Submissions should include:

  • The title of the published article being discussed.

  • The name of the original author or authors.

  • The article's publication details, including volume, issue, year, and DOI or URL, where available.

  • A clear explanation of the scientific issue or concern.

  • Supporting references, evidence, or relevant documentation.

  • The contributor's name, institutional affiliation, and contact information.

  • A declaration of any relevant conflicts of interest.

Letters to the Editor are preferably submitted within six months of the original article's publication to facilitate timely academic discussion.

However, JQAIE may consider submissions beyond this period when they raise significant scientific questions, provide important new evidence, or identify concerns affecting the accuracy or integrity of the scholarly record.

There is no fixed time limit for reporting serious research integrity concerns or substantial errors in published articles.

5. Editorial Evaluation and Review Process

All post-publication discussion submissions will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor to determine their academic relevance, scientific substance, and suitability for further consideration.

The editorial process consists of the following stages:

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Assessment

The editorial office will normally conduct an initial assessment within seven working days after receiving a sufficiently documented submission.

The assessment considers the relevance of the discussion, clarity of arguments, supporting evidence, academic significance, and compliance with publication ethics.

Stage 2: Author Notification and Response

When a submission raises substantive academic questions, the editorial office may forward the comments to the corresponding author of the original article.

Authors will normally be invited to provide a written response within fourteen working days of receiving the notification.

Reasonable extensions may be granted when additional analysis, supporting documentation, or consultation is required.

Stage 3: Independent Academic Evaluation

When a discussion involves substantial methodological disagreements, complex statistical concerns, conflicting empirical interpretations, or significant scientific debates, JQAIE may appoint independent reviewers or subject-matter experts.

Reviewers will assess the scientific validity, fairness, and relevance of the arguments presented by the parties involved.

Stage 4: Editorial Decision

Based on the available evidence and academic evaluation, the editor may decide to:

  • Accept the discussion for publication.

  • Request revisions or additional supporting evidence.

  • Invite further clarification from the original authors.

  • Recommend publication as a Letter to the Editor, Author Response, or Scholarly Commentary.

  • Refer the matter to the journal's correction or research misconduct procedures.

  • Decline the submission when it does not meet academic or ethical requirements.

Stage 5: Publication and Article Linking

Approved scholarly discussions and author responses may be published in a forthcoming issue of JQAIE or through another appropriate journal publication mechanism.

Where technically feasible, published discussions and responses will be digitally linked to the original article through the journal's OJS platform to ensure accessibility, transparency, and continuity of scholarly communication.

The journal will clearly identify the relationship between the original article and the subsequent discussion.

6. Responsibilities and Rights of Original Authors

Authors whose published work becomes the subject of post-publication discussion have the right to respond to substantive academic criticism.

Authors are expected to:

  1. Engage constructively and professionally with scholarly comments.

  2. Provide accurate and evidence-based explanations when clarification is requested.

  3. Acknowledge genuine errors or limitations identified in their published research.

  4. Supply relevant supporting information when reasonably necessary and ethically permissible.

  5. Respect the confidentiality of research participants and applicable data protection requirements.

  6. Cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries concerning the reliability or integrity of their research.

Authors are not required to agree with every criticism. However, disagreements should be addressed through scientific reasoning and appropriate supporting evidence.

An author's failure to respond does not automatically establish that a criticism is valid or that research misconduct has occurred.

7. Post-Publication Discussion in Psychological and Behavioral Research

Given the interdisciplinary scope of JQAIE, post-publication discussions may address issues specific to Islamic psychology, psychological assessment, behavioral sciences, counseling, psychotherapy, and related disciplines.

Relevant areas of discussion include:

  • The theoretical foundations and conceptual interpretation of psychological constructs.

  • The validity, reliability, and cultural appropriateness of psychological measurement instruments.

  • Sampling methods, research design, statistical assumptions, and analytical procedures.

  • Ethical considerations involving human participants, children, adolescents, and vulnerable populations.

  • The effectiveness, limitations, and interpretation of psychological or behavioral interventions.

  • The integration of Islamic perspectives with contemporary psychological theories and empirical findings.

  • The interpretation of religious texts, Islamic psychological concepts, and their methodological application in scientific research.

  • The generalizability, reproducibility, and practical implications of research findings.

Academic discussions involving Islamic perspectives must maintain scholarly rigor, methodological transparency, and respect for legitimate differences in theoretical or interpretive approaches.

Disagreements concerning religious interpretations, theoretical frameworks, or academic perspectives do not automatically constitute research misconduct.

8. Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

All participants in post-publication discussions must uphold the principles of academic integrity, professional conduct, fairness, and mutual respect.

JQAIE does not permit:

  • Personal attacks, harassment, intimidation, or defamatory statements.

  • Discriminatory or offensive language directed at individuals or groups.

  • Fabrication or manipulation of evidence.

  • Deliberate misrepresentation of published findings.

  • Unauthorized disclosure of confidential research information.

  • Improper use of personal or sensitive participant data.

  • Undisclosed competing interests that could compromise the credibility of the discussion.

The editorial office will handle unpublished correspondence and sensitive supporting materials confidentially, subject to legitimate editorial, ethical, and legal requirements.

For discussions involving psychological research, special attention must be given to participant confidentiality, informed consent, and the protection of sensitive personal information.

9. Relationship with Research Misconduct and Retraction Policies

Post-publication discussion is intended primarily to encourage scholarly dialogue and critical evaluation of published research.

Scientific disagreement, methodological criticism, or alternative interpretation does not automatically constitute an allegation of research misconduct.

However, when a discussion reveals credible concerns involving plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other serious publication integrity issues, JQAIE may initiate a formal assessment under its Allegation of Research Misconduct Policy.

When reliable evidence indicates that a published article contains significant errors or that its findings may be unreliable, the journal may take appropriate editorial action, including:

  1. Correction: Publishing a formal notice to address errors that do not fundamentally invalidate the research findings.

  2. Expression of Concern: Informing readers about serious unresolved concerns when an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive.

  3. Retraction: Retracting an article when reliable evidence establishes that its findings or scholarly integrity are fundamentally compromised.

These actions will be undertaken in accordance with the journal's applicable editorial policies and COPE guidance.

10. Transparency and Accessibility of Published Discussions

JQAIE seeks to ensure that accepted post-publication discussions remain accessible and clearly associated with the original research articles.

Where appropriate, published discussions will:

  • Identify the original article and provide its bibliographic information.

  • Include relevant references and supporting evidence.

  • Clearly distinguish the views of commentators from those of the original authors.

  • Provide access to published author responses when available.

  • Include appropriate links between the original article, commentary, response, and any related correction notices.

  • Remain accessible as part of the journal's scholarly publication record.

Publication of a scholarly critique does not necessarily imply that the journal endorses the views expressed by the commentator or rejects the findings of the original article.

11. Appeals and Editorial Reconsideration

Contributors or authors who disagree with an editorial decision concerning a post-publication discussion may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official communication channels.

Appeals should identify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant supporting evidence.

Where appropriate, the appeal may be assessed by an independent editor or qualified editorial board member who was not directly involved in the original decision.

The journal will evaluate appeals fairly and determine whether further review, clarification, or editorial action is warranted.

12. Commitment to Continuous Scholarly Dialogue

JQAIE recognizes post-publication discussion as an essential component of scientific progress, academic accountability, and the continuous improvement of scholarly knowledge.

The journal encourages constructive engagement among researchers, practitioners, educators, and readers while maintaining the principles of scientific integrity, transparency, and mutual respect.

Through responsible post-publication discussion, JQAIE aims to strengthen the reliability of published research, promote critical academic inquiry, and support the advancement of Islamic psychology, psychology, and behavioral sciences.

This policy is implemented in conjunction with the journal's Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, Allegation of Research Misconduct Policy, Peer Review Policy, and Corrections and Retractions Policy.

References and Ethical Guidelines