JOVISHE: Journal of Visionary Sharia Economy, published by Yayasan Lembaga Studi Makwa (Makwa Foundation), Indonesia, recognises that scholarly evaluation continues after an article enters the published literature. Rigorous pre-publication peer review contributes to research quality, but responsible scholarship also requires opportunities to question methods, examine interpretations, correct the record, and engage with new evidence.

This policy establishes how readers, researchers, authors, academic institutions, and other interested parties may submit evidence-based comments or concerns about JOVISHE articles; how editors assess such communications; how authors are invited to respond; and when a matter should be referred to formal correction, retraction, or research-integrity procedures. It complements the journal’s Publication Ethics, Research Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, Plagiarism Policy, and Peer Review Process without replacing those policies.

JOVISHE facilitates respectful, substantive discussion of material already published in the journal, including original research articles, review articles, conceptual and theoretical contributions, and applied innovation or design-based research. Post-publication comments may concern research design, sampling, data analysis, interpretation, limitations, the relevance of new evidence, the transparency of reporting, or potential errors affecting readers’ understanding.

A comment may be initiated by an author, reader, researcher, institutional representative, or another party with a legitimate scholarly concern. The journal may also initiate an editorial inquiry when a material issue is identified internally or through third-party notices. There is no automatic limitation period for evidence of serious error or research-integrity concerns; the nature of a scholarly exchange may nevertheless influence its relevance and publication format.

Formal scholarly correspondence about an existing article is handled under this policy and is not automatically a fifth category of original research manuscript. A new independent study, systematic review, or substantial original dataset submitted in response to a published paper must follow the usual Manuscript Types, Author Guidelines, and peer-review requirements.

The appropriate route depends on the substance and supporting evidence, not merely on the label selected by the correspondent. A difference of academic opinion may be suitable for a published exchange, while a demonstrable reporting error may require a formal correction. Allegations of misconduct are treated as unproven unless and until sufficient evidence is established through an appropriate process.

Comments, questions, and concerns about published JOVISHE articles should be directed to the JOVISHE Editorial Office through the official Contact page. Use the subject line “Post-Publication Discussion — [Article Title or DOI]”. This correspondence route is distinct from the Makwa Foundation preliminary submission portal used for new research manuscripts.

Information to provide

• Article identification: full article title, author names where possible, year of publication, DOI if assigned, or a direct URL to the journal’s article page.
• Nature of the comment: a focused account of the question, disputed interpretation, suspected error, or concern, identifying relevant passages, tables, figures, or methods.
• Scholarly justification: calculations, sources, supporting documents, reproducibility evidence, or references sufficient for independent understanding of the issue.
• Requested outcome: clarification, an invitation for an author response, a publishable comment, review of a specific error, or an integrity assessment, where appropriate.
• Correspondent information: full name, current affiliation if applicable, and a working contact address for confidential editorial communication.
• Competing interests: any relationship or interest relevant to the article, its authors, the concern raised, or the requested action.

Evidence-based integrity reports may be received confidentially. Anonymous allegations may be considered when verifiable information is supplied, although anonymity may limit the opportunity to request clarification. Publicly attributable scholarly correspondence ordinarily requires the writer’s identity and approval of the material to be published. Do not transmit identifiable research-participant records, sensitive financial data, or restricted institutional information through an unsecured channel; request secure handling instructions from the editorial office first.

The Editor-in-Chief or a non-conflicted designated editor checks whether the communication identifies a JOVISHE article, raises a matter relevant to the published record, and offers a sufficiently clear scholarly basis for consideration. The editor may ask for further information or clarification without requiring the correspondent to prove the full allegation before an initial assessment is made.

Correspondence is assessed for relevance, specificity, evidential support, scholarly value, originality, respectful presentation, and compliance with applicable privacy or legal requirements. Unsupported accusations, personal attacks, discriminatory statements, promotional material, and correspondence unrelated to the published work are not considered appropriate for publication. A substantive critique must not be rejected merely because its conclusions are unwelcome, contentious, or contrary to those of the original paper.

An editor who has a relevant financial, professional, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, or personal conflict must not manage the assessment. A suitably independent editor or responsible person will be assigned in accordance with the Conflict of Interest Policy.

Where a post-publication critique raises substantial scientific issues, the original author(s) will ordinarily have a reasonable opportunity to provide a response. The response should address the specific methodological, analytical, or interpretive questions raised, use verifiable evidence, acknowledge any substantiated limitations, and avoid disparagement of the correspondent. A response may be edited for clarity, accuracy, length, and scholarly relevance.

Author participation facilitates a constructive exchange but does not give authors a veto over legitimate criticism. Failure to respond is not in itself evidence of misconduct and does not prevent the journal from evaluating credible concerns or taking necessary corrective action. Editors may request clarifications or advice from independent subject specialists when findings are contested or technically difficult.

Any external specialist consulted about confidential evidence must declare relevant conflicts and preserve confidentiality. When acting as a reviewer, that specialist is subject to the journal’s prohibition on using AI tools to analyse, assess, or prepare a review of manuscript material, consistent with its 2026 accreditation-aligned peer-review policy.

After considering the available evidence, the editorial office may select one or more proportionate outcomes. An issue may require a public notice even when the original authors have not replied; conversely, a reasoned disagreement may warrant no change to the published article.

When a formal scholarly comment or reply is accepted for publication, the editorial office determines its appropriate presentation and metadata, taking account of available OJS functions. Published exchanges should identify the article under discussion and, where technically possible, include reciprocal links between the original article, the critique, and the response. Formal commentaries may undergo independent editorial or expert assessment; they are not automatically subject to the same pre-publication review configuration as full original research articles.

Where the investigation identifies an error that affects part of an article but does not invalidate the principal findings, the journal may publish a correction notice. When the reliability of the work is seriously in doubt and an inquiry remains unresolved, an Expression of Concern may be considered. Where the article’s core results or conclusions are not reliable, or other grounds specified in the journal’s correction and retraction policy are met, a retraction may be issued. Removal of published content is an exceptional measure, generally reserved for compelling legal, privacy, or safety grounds.

Formal notices must be clearly titled, dated, attributable to the authorised issuing body, and intelligibly linked to the affected article. They should explain the specific basis for the action without making unsupported allegations. The original article is ordinarily retained with a prominent status indication when retracted, rather than silently deleted or substituted.

Allegations concerning fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated research materials, unethical data collection, undisclosed material competing interests, improper authorship, or manipulated peer review are handled in accordance with JOVISHE’s Research Misconduct, Plagiarism Policy, and Publication Ethics procedures. The editorial office assesses the reliability of its publication record and may seek explanations, documents, independent expertise, or institutional assistance as necessary.

The journal distinguishes an allegation from a substantiated finding and gives affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to legitimate confidentiality and investigative needs. Formal determinations of researcher misconduct may require investigation by the relevant university, research institution, funding body, or other competent authority. Editorial responsibility for correcting or protecting the published record remains with the journal.

Good-faith reports are assessed on their evidence, not on the seniority, affiliation, reputation, nationality, or commercial position of the author or correspondent. Knowingly malicious reports and defamatory language are unacceptable, while substantiated criticism is not treated as misconduct merely because it is critical.

Unpublished correspondence, allegations, research materials, names of confidential sources, personal information, and editorial deliberations are handled on a need-to-know basis, subject to legal obligations and the requirements of a fair assessment. Where sensitive supporting records are required, the editor should arrange proportionate and secure handling before the material is transferred. Confidential reviewer identities and unpublished peer-review reports must not be disclosed as part of an open scholarly exchange without appropriate authorisation.

Participants must address evidence and reasoning rather than individuals. Public correspondence may be edited or declined if it reveals identifiable research-participant data, breaches lawful confidentiality, makes unsupported defamatory accusations, or contains personal attacks. Use of AI by editors and external reviewers in handling confidential material must comply with JOVISHE’s Artificial Intelligence Policy and applicable reviewer restrictions.

Scholarly comments, author replies, and editorial actions are evaluated independently of the author’s professional standing, institutional affiliation, the identity of the correspondent, publication fees, sponsorship, or commercial relationships. Authors, correspondents, consulted specialists, and editors must disclose relevant competing interests. Conflicted editors must recuse themselves and the case must be transferred to an appropriately independent decision-maker.

Editorial judgments are based on whether the exchange contributes to the scholarly record and whether a corrective action is justified by evidence. The publisher supports the journal’s responsibility to maintain accurate publication records while respecting editorial independence. The absence or presence of a financial relationship must not determine the scientific conclusion of an inquiry.

A correspondent or affected author who believes a material concern was inadequately considered may request reconsideration through the Editorial Office. The request should identify the decision in question, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant evidence or a demonstrable procedural concern. Where feasible, reconsideration is assigned to an editor who did not make the initial decision and who has no relevant conflict of interest.

The journal will respond as reasonably practicable, taking account of the technical complexity of the issue, the need for external review, and possible institutional investigation. A request for reconsideration does not guarantee publication of the critique, withdrawal of a notice, or any particular editorial outcome. New and credible evidence may be considered even after an earlier case was closed.

JOVISHE does not impose an automatic time limit on credible allegations of serious research or publication-integrity problems. Scholarly comments on older work may still be considered when they materially advance understanding, although the relevance and appropriate format of such discussion remain matters for editorial judgment.

The editorial office maintains an appropriate internal record of the concern, dates of actual receipt and action, article identifiers, evidence reviewed, conflict-of-interest safeguards, invitations to respond, consultations, editorial decisions, and any public notices issued. Records are retained and protected in accordance with the journal’s applicable administrative and privacy requirements, using OJS where suitable or another controlled editorial record where necessary.

Material post-publication changes must not be made through undisclosed replacement of the article’s scientific content or by altering historical editorial dates. Where a formal notice is issued, JOVISHE should preserve links between the notice and original article, accurately record the notice’s publication date, and update associated DOI or indexing metadata when the relevant infrastructure supports such updates. Editorial notices should not be retrospectively inserted into an already closed issue as though they had been published earlier.

This policy is reviewed as journal procedures and external publication-ethics standards evolve. Its existence is not a claim that any particular post-publication case has already occurred, or that every form of public comment is enabled directly within the current OJS interface.

Readers and contributors should consult this policy together with JOVISHE’s broader publication-ethics framework. Serious reliability concerns are addressed through the applicable misconduct and correction procedures, whereas regular submissions of new research follow the standard Author Guidelines and Peer Review Process.

Complementary dedicated policies include Research Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, Artificial Intelligence, and Correction and Retraction. Links to these pages should be added to the journal navigation once their final public URLs have been confirmed.

International and national policy references