Post-Publication Discussion

Iqtishadia: Jurnal Ekonomi dan Perbankan Syariah encourages continuous post-publication academic discourse and scholarly debate to foster scientific integrity, transparency, and the advancement of knowledge in Islamic economics, finance, and banking. Publication in Iqtishadia does not mark the end of peer scrutiny; constructive feedback, methodological discussions, theoretical inquiries, and empirical re-examinations concerning published articles are highly welcomed.

  1. Forms of Discussion

Post-publication academic engagement in Iqtishadia may take several formal channels:

  • Letters to the Editor: Readers, researchers, or practitioners may submit formal scholarly commentary, clarifications, or critical evaluations regarding a specific article published in Iqtishadia.
  • Author Responses (Right of Reply): The original author(s) of the discussed article will be provided the opportunity to submit a formal response to address the points raised in the accepted Letter to the Editor.
  • Corrections, Addenda, and Retractions: Issues involving factual inaccuracies, statistical errors, data inconsistencies, or ethical breaches will be managed in strict accordance with Iqtishadia’s Correction and Retraction Policy and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.
  1. Submission Criteria & Guidelines

Submissions intended for post-publication discussion must fulfill the following requirements:

  • Relevance & Specificity: Comments must directly pertain to a specific paper published in Iqtishadia, explicitly citing the article’s full title, author(s), volume, issue, publication year, and Digital Object Identifier (DOI).
  • Scientific Rigor & Evidence: Critiques must be grounded in robust methodology, empirical data, logical analysis, or relevant Islamic economic and financial literature.
  • Academic Conduct & Tone: All submissions must maintain a respectful, constructive, and professional scholarly tone. Defamatory remarks, personal attacks, inflammatory language, or unsubstantiated allegations will result in immediate rejection.
  • Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Contributors must explicitly declare any actual, potential, or perceived financial or non-financial conflicts of interest related to the subject under discussion.
  1. Editorial Evaluation & Publication Process
  • Initial Desk Review: The Editor-in-Chief and relevant Section Editors conduct an initial assessment to evaluate the submission's scope, academic merit, logical coherence, and tone.
  • Right of Reply Mechanism: If the critique is deemed valid and scholarly, it will be shared with the corresponding author(s) of the original article, who will be invited to submit a formal response within a specified timeframe (typically 14–30 days).
  • Peer Review & Joint Publication: Depending on the complexity of the debate, both the critique and the author's reply may undergo independent double-blind peer review. Upon acceptance, the Letter to the Editor and the Author Response will be published together in a subsequent issue and bi-directionally linked to the original article on the journal’s platform.
  1. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

If a post-publication submission raises serious concerns regarding research misconduct (such as data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or unrevealed ethical violations), the matter will be handled confidentially and separately from public academic dialogue. The Editorial Board will initiate an internal investigation adhering strictly to the flowcharts and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).