TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology, published by the Faculty of Psychology, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta, recognizes that scholarly evaluation continues after an article has been published. The journal encourages constructive, evidence-based discussion of published research to strengthen scientific understanding, methodological rigor, transparency, and research integrity in psychology and related fields.

Post-publication discussion provides an opportunity for researchers, authors, readers, and other members of the academic community to examine published findings, question interpretations, identify limitations, and propose alternative explanations. Such discussion should be conducted respectfully and in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and editorial standards.

Publication does not prevent further scientific scrutiny. The journal welcomes substantive scholarly criticism and reasoned responses while protecting the rights of authors, the confidentiality of research participants, and the reliability of the scholarly record.

1. Scope of Post-Publication Discussion

TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology welcomes scholarly comments, critiques, clarifications, and responses concerning articles previously published in the journal. Contributions should address a substantive issue that is relevant to the article and contributes to academic understanding.

Topics suitable for post-publication discussion include:

• Theoretical and conceptual arguments: examination of theoretical assumptions, conceptual frameworks, psychological constructs, and interpretations presented in a published article.
• Research methodology: constructive assessment of research design, sampling procedures, participant selection, data collection, measurement, and analytical methods.
• Statistical analysis: discussion of statistical procedures, model specification, assumptions, interpretation of statistical results, effect sizes, reliability, validity, and other relevant analytical considerations.
• Psychological measurement: scholarly discussion of psychometric instruments, scale adaptation, factor structures, measurement validity, reliability, and the interpretation of assessment results.
• Empirical findings: evidence-based examination of reported results, alternative explanations, limitations, and implications for psychological theory or practice.
• Research transparency: questions about data availability, analytical procedures, reporting accuracy, reproducibility, or the documentation supporting published findings.
• Research ethics: substantiated concerns involving informed consent, participant confidentiality, ethical approval, authorship, conflicts of interest, or other research integrity matters.
• Corrections and factual clarification: identification of material errors in numerical results, references, tables, figures, descriptions, or other parts of a published article.

Post-publication discussion should provide meaningful scholarly analysis rather than merely express personal disagreement, unsupported allegations, or opinions unrelated to the scientific content of the article.

2. Forms of Scholarly Discussion

Depending on the nature of the contribution and the journal's editorial arrangements, post-publication discussion may take the following forms:

a. Scholarly Comments or Letters to the Editor

A scholarly comment or letter to the editor presents a focused academic observation, question, clarification, or critique relating to a previously published article. The contribution should identify the relevant issue, explain its significance, and support its arguments with appropriate evidence or scholarly references.

b. Author Responses

Authors of the original article may be invited to respond to substantive comments or criticisms. Responses should address the issues raised, clarify the original argument or methodology where necessary, and acknowledge errors when they are identified.

c. Scholarly Commentary

Where appropriate, the journal may consider a more developed scholarly commentary that examines significant theoretical, methodological, or empirical questions arising from a published article. Such contributions may be subject to editorial assessment and peer review when deemed necessary.

Acceptance of any post-publication contribution is subject to editorial assessment. The availability of a specific discussion format or public commenting feature is not guaranteed.

3. Submission of Post-Publication Comments

Readers, researchers, and other interested parties may submit post-publication comments or requests for scholarly clarification through the journal's official editorial communication channel or submission system, as applicable.

Submissions should include the following information:

• The contributor's name, institutional affiliation where applicable, and contact details.
• The title and author names of the published article being discussed.
• The publication year and DOI or permanent URL of the article, where available.
• A concise description of the principal issue, question, or scholarly argument.
• Relevant evidence, references, calculations, or supporting documentation.
• A disclosure of any actual, potential, or perceived competing interests relevant to the contribution.

Contributions should be written in clear academic English and remain focused on the published article. They should distinguish factual observations from interpretations and avoid claims that cannot be reasonably supported by the available evidence.

Where a concern involves confidential research information, personal data, or sensitive information about research participants, contributors should not disclose such material publicly. Relevant concerns should instead be communicated to the editorial team through an appropriate confidential channel.

There is no general deadline for raising a legitimate scholarly concern about a published article. However, contributors are encouraged to submit comments when the discussion remains relevant and can meaningfully contribute to the evaluation or clarification of the published research.

4. Editorial Assessment and Moderation

The editorial team evaluates post-publication contributions according to their scholarly relevance, clarity, originality, supporting evidence, professional language, and compliance with the journal's publication ethics.

During assessment, the editorial team may:

• Determine whether the contribution falls within the journal's scope and is relevant to the published article.
• Request clarification, additional evidence, or revision from the contributor.
• Invite the original authors to respond to substantive criticism.
• Seek independent expert advice when technical or methodological issues require additional assessment.
• Refer potential research integrity concerns to the appropriate editorial procedure.
• Decline contributions that do not meet scholarly, ethical, or editorial requirements.

The journal does not accept contributions containing personal attacks, harassment, discriminatory language, defamatory material, unsupported allegations presented as established facts, unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, spam, or content intended primarily for political or commercial promotion.

Editorial decisions concerning post-publication contributions are independent of personal relationships, institutional affiliations, financial interests, and the professional status of the individuals involved. Submission of a comment does not guarantee publication.

5. Authors' Right to Respond

When a substantive comment raises questions about a published article, the editorial team may invite the original authors to provide a response, clarification, or relevant supporting evidence.

Authors are encouraged to address the specific issues raised in a professional and evidence-based manner. They should distinguish between legitimate differences in interpretation and demonstrable errors in the research or reporting.

Where a comment identifies a genuine error or limitation, authors should acknowledge the issue and cooperate with the editorial team in determining whether a correction or other appropriate action is necessary.

Where appropriate, the journal may publish the scholarly comment and the authors' response as related contributions. Both contributions are subject to editorial assessment and must disclose relevant competing interests.

A response is not required to agree with the criticism. However, it should address the substantive academic issues raised without personal attacks or inappropriate disclosure of confidential information.

6. Corrections and Research Integrity Concerns

Post-publication discussion may identify errors or concerns that require formal editorial action beyond scholarly correspondence. The appropriate action depends on the nature, significance, and evidentiary basis of the concern.

Correction. A correction may be considered when a published article contains a material error that should be amended to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record, while the principal findings remain sufficiently reliable.

Expression of Concern. An expression of concern may be considered when substantial questions arise regarding the reliability or integrity of an article but the available evidence is insufficient for a final determination, or when an investigation remains unresolved.

Retraction. Retraction may be considered when evidence establishes that an article's findings are materially unreliable or that serious research or publication ethics violations warrant retraction.

Potential concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical research conduct, authorship disputes, or other serious integrity issues will be assessed through the journal's relevant publication ethics and complaints procedures.

Legitimate scholarly disagreement, differences in theoretical interpretation, or the existence of alternative explanations do not by themselves constitute grounds for retraction. Any formal editorial action must be proportionate to the evidence and follow the journal's applicable policies.

Where a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is warranted, the journal aims to provide an appropriate notice linked to the affected publication, subject to its editorial procedures and publishing capabilities.

7. Transparency and Publication of Scholarly Exchanges

When a post-publication comment or author response is accepted for publication, the journal should clearly identify the original article to which the contribution relates. The title, authorship, publication details, and DOI or permanent URL of the original article should be included where available.

Where supported by the journal's publishing platform, accepted comments and responses should be linked to the original article to help readers follow the scholarly discussion and understand the context of the issues raised.

Published contributions should be appropriately attributed and documented. The publication of a comment does not necessarily mean that the journal endorses every argument presented, nor does it automatically invalidate the original article.

The editorial team should preserve relevant publication records and ensure that any formal correction or retraction is communicated transparently in accordance with the applicable journal policy.

8. Confidentiality and Competing Interests

All participants in post-publication discussion must respect confidentiality, privacy, and applicable ethical obligations. Personal information, identifiable participant records, confidential reviewer reports, unpublished research materials, and other protected information must not be disclosed without appropriate authorization.

Contributors, authors, editors, and invited experts should disclose any relevant competing interests that could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, their assessment of the matter.

Editors who have a relevant conflict of interest should not lead the assessment or make the final decision on the matter where an independent alternative is reasonably available. The journal may assign the case to another qualified editor or seek independent advice.

The journal seeks to handle all parties fairly while maintaining the confidentiality necessary for a responsible assessment. Information may be shared with relevant parties when necessary to investigate a concern or comply with applicable obligations.

9. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This Post-Publication Discussion Policy should be read together with the following policies and information published by TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology:

• Publication Ethics
• Peer Review Process
• Retraction, Withdrawal, and Correction Policy
• Plagiarism Notice
• Generative AI Policy
• Copyright Notice
• Submissions
• Official Journal Website

10. Commitment to Responsible Scholarly Dialogue

TAZKIYA Journal of Psychology considers constructive post-publication discussion an important part of responsible scientific communication. Evidence-based criticism, author responses, and appropriate corrections can improve the interpretation of psychological findings and strengthen confidence in the scholarly record.

The journal is committed to facilitating fair, respectful, and academically meaningful discussion while protecting research participants, respecting authors' rights, and addressing substantiated research integrity concerns through appropriate editorial procedures.