Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Statement of Publication Ethics

All journals of Journal of Critical Realism in Socio-Economics (JOCRISE) support and adopted “Publication ethics” which are based on COPE’s Best Practice (http://publicationethics.org/) .

Editorial Board

Journal of Critical Realism in Socio-Economics is a peer-reviewed journal. The editorial board is made up of scholars with relevant experience. This site provides associations and full names. Every board member is committed to ethical standart of research publication.

  1. Only authorise for publication content of the highest quality.
  2. Ensure that a thorough, objective and blind peer review is conducted for original article submissions.
  3. Clearly identify articles which will not be double-blind peer reviewed (i.e. non-academic papers).
  4. Practicing transparency with regards to the review and publication process with appropriate care that individuals will not be identified when it is inappropriate to so do.
  1. decide to publish or reject it the paper according to its scientific importance/quality, reader interest, Reviewers’ comments, and any applicable legal requirements (i.e., plagiarism, breach of copyright, etc.);
  1. communicate courteously with the authors over their paper;
  2. Provide advice to the authors during the submission process when necessary.
  3. Provide authors the right to appeal any editorial decision.
  4. Be ready to release corrections as needed.
  5. Communicate with both the publisher and the author(s)in a timely manner.
  6. Treat all submissions fairly without any favour of prejudice

Reviewer have responsibility to:

  • Reviewer’s maintain the confidentiality of the review process;
  • Reviewer’s Only review papers that are relevant to their own expertise.
  • Reviewer’s have the objective judgment about any paper suggested for their review;
  • Reviewer’s haven’t any conflict of interest with respect to the research, authors, and/or research funders;
  • Reviewer’s alert immediately the journal editor about any real or potential competing interest that could affect the independence of the review itself;
  • Reviewer’s  not to use any part of the material obtained for blind review in their own publications or unpublished research studies without proper citing;
  • Reviewer’s report any suspected ethical misconduct which appears in the work.
  • Reviewer’s have no attempts to look for or contact the potential authors of the papers suggested for review.

Author Resposiblilities

Authors should ensure that:

  • the paper is original and written by them;
  • the paper has not been published in any other journal and has been submitted for consideration to this journal only;
  • the data has been obtained by the authors directly, or they have all legal permissions to use the data obtained from private businesses or other independent sources;
  • the data is original and not manipulated;
  • all sources used in the paper are clearly cited;
  • the paper does not break any copyrights of others;
  • the paper includes funding acknowledgment in case an institution or grant supported the paper;
  • the paper includes a declaration about research ethics approval or a statement that the study did not require research ethics approval;
  • there is no conflict of interest between the co-authors or with third parties;
  • addition, deletion, or order rearrangement of the authors’ names in the authorship list are approved in advance by the whole team;
  • they contact the Editor to correct any errors upon their discovery immediately, no later than the text is published online;
  • they are obliged to participate in the peer-review process, responding timely and politely to all comments of the reviewers; if the authors agree to make changes – they must provide the corrections promptly; if the authors do not agree with reviewers’ recommendations or other remarks – objections with a detailed explanation must be provided;
  • they agree with minor corrections to the contents, including the title, phrasing, style, etc.;
  • Recognise that the Editorial Board has the final decision to publish.

 

 

Plagiarism

Journal of Critical Realism in Socio-Economic (JOCRISE) is a member of CrossCheck’s plagiarism detection initiative and uses plagiarism detection software (Turnitin). If plagiarism is identified, there will be a follow up investigation in line with the COPE guidelines on plagiarism . COPE has specified the following guidelines depending on the severity of the situation:

  • Only in situations where the plagiarism seems to have been accidental should a letter outlining the circumstances, outlining the issue, and requesting an explanation be issued to the author.
  • In cases where the plagiarism appears to be intentional, a strong letter reprimanding the author for the misconduct and also a warning against such conduct in future needs to be sent.
  • A formal letter to notify the author’s head of institution about the misconduct needs to be sent.
  • A formal letter to notify the funding body which funded the research about the misconduct needs to be sent.
  • A public notice about the misconduct needs to the published.
  • An editorial article giving a detailed description of the misconduct needs to be published.
  • A period needs to be decided, wherein any other publication from the author, group of authors or the institution will not be accepted.
  • In cases where the article has already been published, a formal withdrawal or retraction of the article needs to be undertaken. This would involve notifying other editors and indexing authorities.
  • Also, if available and authoritarian organization such as the General Medical Council needs to be informed of this misconduct, so that it is effectively investigated and required action is taken.

At any stage of peer-review, publication, or post-publication, if plagiarism is detected the manuscript may be rejected, corrected or retracted, as appropriate, and the journal reserves the right to inform the authors’ institutions about any plagiarism detected. We expect that our editors and reviewers will inform the journal about any concerns related to plagiarism.

Publication Ethics

The editor will seek to ensure no misconduct is involved in published papers.

A critical part of the author’s responsibilities concerns the awareness of plagiarism and other forms of misconduct in academic publications.

Papers found with misconduct will not be published, and will be corrected or withdrawn after publication when needed, and clarification and corrections can be published.

Post-publication discussions and corrections policy

Journal of Critical Realism in Socio-Economic (JOCRISE) allows debate post-publication through letters to the editors. Possible corrections will be made after careful consideration by the editors to ensure any necessary changes are made following the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance. The editors will apply mechanisms for correcting, revising, or retracting articles after publication, following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Copyright and Acces

Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Fair use provisions can be observed where applicable for academic writing. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with acknowledgement. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible.

Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and should not be presented as if they were the authors’ own. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.

This journal is provided to readers on open access, without pay per view.

This journal seeks global, in perpetuity and without cost licence to publish a paper, but copyright remains with the author.

Submission

Papers sent to the Editorial Office are checked on formal requirements and Journal focus. Papers that do not match the focus of the Journal and/or do not meet formal requirements will be rejected. Papers corresponding to the journal's focus and meeting formal requirements are forwarded to the Editorial Board for Desk Review. The papers that have passed the Desk review are blind peer-reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. 

The papers should have been proofread and corrected for errors and will be regarded as accurate; authors are responsible for factual content. Only visual data, images, etc., over which the author(s) have copyright may be used unless permission has been obtained and acknowledged - it is the authors' responsibility to obtain such permissions. Simultaneous submissions to other print or electronic journals are not permitted.

Content published in this journal is peer reviewed (Double Blind).

 

 

Peer review process

Journal of Critical Realism in Socio-Economic (JOCRISE) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Every paper submitted to the Jocrise for publication is subject to peer review. The peer review in this journal is an evaluation of the submitted paper by two or more individuals of similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the academic paper's suitability for publication. The peer review method is employed to maintain standards of quality and provide credibility for the papers. The peer review at Jocrise proceeds in 9 steps with the description as follows.

  1. Submission of Paper

The article is submitted to the journal by the corresponding or submitting author. This is carried out through a web site that the Open Journal System (OJS) supports. However, Jocrise also momentarily takes paper submissions by email to help authors.

  1. Editorial Office Assessment

The submitted paper is first assessed by the Jocrise's editor. The editor checks whether it is suitable for the Journal's focus and scope. The paper's composition and arrangement are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. In addition, an assessment of the minimum required quality of the paper for publication begins at this step, including one that assesses whether there is a major methodological flaw. Every submitted paper that passes this step will be checked by Turnitin to measure the similarity index which leads to plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.

  1. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief 

The Editor-in-Chief checks if the paper is appropriate for the journal, sufficiently original, interesting, and significant for publication. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

  1. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals who he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, the closeness of research interest, and no conflict of interest consideration. The peer review process at Jocrise involves a community of experts who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial reviews.  The impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review employed in this journal. That said, the reviewer does not know the author's identity, conversely, the author does not know the reviewer's identity.  The paper is sent to reviewers anonymously.

  1. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or decline. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for the suggestion of an alternative reviewer, when he or she declines to review.

  1. Review is Conducted

The reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewers may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

  1. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely between both reviewers, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to obtain an extra opinion before making a decision.

  1. The Decision is Communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take the necessary actions and responses. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.

  1. Final Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. Suppose the article is rejected or sent back to the author for either major or minor revision. In that case, the handling editor will include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. The author should make corrections and revise the paper per the reviewers' comments and instructions.

 

After revision has been made, the author should resubmit the revised paper to the editor.

If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered to be accepted. The accepted papers will be published online and all are freely available as downloadable pdf files.