Post Publication Discussion

Purpose and Objectives

The Post-Publication Discussion Policy establishes procedures for receiving, evaluating, responding to, and, where appropriate, publishing scholarly discussions relating to articles already published in Tarbawi: Jurnal Studi Pendidikan Islami.

The objectives are to:

• Encourage constructive and evidence-based academic dialogue.
• Provide opportunities for readers to discuss published findings and interpretations.
• Promote methodological transparency and research reproducibility.
• Support authors in clarifying or expanding upon their published research.
• Identify potential errors or limitations requiring editorial attention.
• Maintain the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record.
• Ensure that legitimate scientific disagreements receive fair consideration.

Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

Post-publication discussions may address scientific, methodological, theoretical, ethical, or interpretive aspects of articles published in the journal.

Who May Submit a Discussion?

The journal welcomes relevant and constructive scholarly contributions from:

• Researchers and academics.
• Authors of published articles.
• Lecturers, teachers, and educational practitioners.
• Postgraduate students and other scholarly readers.
• Peer reviewers and subject specialists.
• Other individuals with relevant evidence or legitimate academic concerns.

Contributors should disclose relevant affiliations, relationships, and competing interests that could reasonably influence the discussion. Requests for confidential handling of contributor identity will be considered according to the circumstances and applicable ethical obligations.

Submission of Post-Publication Comments

Post-publication comments, scholarly criticisms, or requests for clarification may be submitted through the journal's official editorial contact channel. Contributors should provide sufficient information to identify the article and explain the substance of their comments.

Editorial Assessment

The editorial team evaluates submissions based on scholarly relevance, clarity, evidentiary support, professional conduct, and potential contribution to the published research record.

The editor may:

• Request clarification or additional supporting evidence.
• Invite the contributor to revise the submitted comment.
• Consult an independent expert or reviewer when specialized evaluation is necessary.
• Invite the original article's authors to respond.
• Decline comments that are unsupported, irrelevant, abusive, defamatory, or unrelated to scholarly evaluation.
• Refer substantial integrity concerns to the journal's applicable research misconduct procedures.

Editorial assessment must distinguish legitimate scientific disagreement from allegations of misconduct. A difference of interpretation does not automatically indicate a defect or ethical violation in the published article.

Author's Right to Respond

Authors of the article under discussion should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive scholarly criticisms or concerns relating to their work.

Author responses should address the main points of the discussion and may include clarification of research methods, interpretation of results, additional explanation, or acknowledgment of identified limitations.

The editorial office determines an appropriate response period based on the complexity and significance of the issues raised. The absence of an author response does not automatically prevent further editorial assessment.

Publication of Comments and Responses

Where editorially appropriate, a substantive post-publication discussion and corresponding author response may be considered for publication as scholarly correspondence, a commentary, an author response, or an editorial notice supported by the journal's publishing system.

Published discussions should clearly identify the article concerned and provide appropriate bibliographic links to the original publication. Where technically supported, related comments and responses should be linked to each other to support transparency and discoverability.

Not all correspondence will necessarily be published. Editorial decisions will consider scholarly relevance, evidentiary quality, proportionality, and the integrity of the academic record.

Possible Outcomes and Editorial Follow-Up

Following evaluation, a post-publication discussion may result in:

• Clarification without changes to the published article.
• Publication of a scholarly comment or author response.
• Request for additional information or supporting evidence.
• Editorial clarification concerning the interpretation of published findings.
• A formal correction where a verifiable error requires amendment.
• An expression of concern where serious unresolved issues warrant public notification.
• A retraction when reliable evidence demonstrates that the findings or publication record are seriously compromised.
• Referral to an appropriate institutional authority when a formal research misconduct investigation is necessary.

Ethical Standards for Scholarly Discussion

All parties participating in post-publication discussion are expected to maintain professional, respectful, and evidence-based communication.

• Address scholarly arguments rather than personal characteristics.
• Provide accurate references and verifiable supporting evidence.
• Avoid harassment, intimidation, discriminatory statements, or unsupported allegations.
• Respect participant confidentiality and applicable data protection obligations.
• Declare relevant conflicts of interest.
• Cooperate with reasonable editorial inquiries.

Confidentiality and Documentation

The editorial office handles correspondence, supporting materials, and personal information in accordance with the journal's confidentiality requirements and applicable data protection rules.

Records of significant post-publication discussions, editorial assessments, author responses, and final decisions should be retained within the journal's authorized editorial records system. Confidential information should not be disclosed publicly without an appropriate basis.