Post Publication Discussion

Post-Publication Discussion Policy

Penamas: Journal of Religious and Societies

Policy Statement
Penamas welcomes responsible scholarly discussion of the articles it publishes on religion, culture, and society. Published research remains open to legitimate scrutiny. Criticism should be supported by evidence, assessed fairly, and made with respect for professional standards and the confidentiality of research participants. This policy follows the journal’s Publication Ethics policy and COPE guidance.

1. Who May Take Part
Readers, researchers, authors, institutions, and other relevant parties may submit comments. Contributors must give their full name, affiliation, and a working email address. Anonymous comments are not accepted.

2. Scope
Accepted topics:

  • research methods, data interpretation, and conclusions;
  • theory, alternative perspectives, and comparison with other studies;
  • ethics of research involving human participants;
  • factual, numerical, citation, or authorship errors;
  • substantiated questions about originality or integrity.

Not accepted: personal criticism, discriminatory statements, defamation, and accusations without evidence. Suspected misconduct is not handled as a comment but is referred to the Research Misconduct procedure.

3. How to Submit
Send a written comment by email to the Editorial Office (penamasjurnal@gmail.com) with the subject line “Post-Publication Discussion – [article title or DOI]”. Include:

  • your name, affiliation, and contact details;
  • the article title and DOI or permanent URL;
  • a concise explanation of the issue, with references or evidence for factual claims;
  • a statement of any competing interests.

Comments should not exceed 1,000 words. The OJS submission system and social media are not official channels.

4. Editorial Assessment and Moderation

  1. Acknowledgement: the Editorial Office confirms receipt.
  2. Screening: the editors check relevance, accuracy, evidence, respectful language, and ethical compliance. They may ask the contributor for clarification or revision.
  3. Author response: for substantive comments, the original authors are invited to respond with evidence. The contributor’s identity is shared with the authors.
  4. External review: where needed, an independent expert is consulted.
  5. Decision: the Editor-in-Chief decides. Editors with a conflict of interest do not take part.

A comment may be declined if it contains defamation, discrimination, personal attacks, unsupported accusations, or confidential information. Submission does not guarantee publication. The journal keeps editorial discretion over suitability and form.

5. Authors’ Response
Authors are expected to respond professionally, explain their methods and findings, acknowledge identifiable errors, and answer legitimate questions.

6. Publication of Comments
Accepted comments, together with any author response, are published openly as a Letter to the Editor. They are linked to the original article and given their own citation details. The original article stays in place and is not changed unless a correction or retraction is decided.

7. Ethical Protection and Confidentiality
Penamas gives priority to the rights and safety of research participants, including informants, minority and vulnerable groups, and religious communities. Submissions must not disclose:

  • personal information that identifies participants without their consent;
  • confidential interview transcripts, recordings, or field records;
  • private editorial correspondence or unpublished data without permission;
  • information that could cause credible harm or retaliation.

Unpublished correspondence is kept confidential until the editors reach a decision.

8. Outcomes Affecting the Article
Discussion may reveal problems that are handled under the Correction and Retraction Policy:

  • Correction (erratum, corrigendum, or addendum): the problem does not undermine the main findings.
  • Expression of Concern: a serious question about reliability or ethics is not yet resolved.
  • Retraction: the integrity of the article is violated or a serious error makes its data, findings, or conclusions unreliable.
  • Further editorial review: the evidence is incomplete, an institutional investigation is needed, or misconduct is alleged (see Research Misconduct).

Notices are public, linked to the article, and update the DOI and metadata. Retracted articles remain online and are clearly marked.

9. Editorial Independence and Records
Decisions rest on scholarly grounds. The contributor’s or author’s institution, nationality, seniority, or commercial interests are not considered. The journal keeps a record of every comment, decision, and the reasons for it.