Peer Review Process

JOCRSE uses an online submission and review system. The submission and peer review of every article must be managed using this system and based on following Peer Review Policy. 

  • JOCRSE Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of papers and the selection of reviewers.
  • Articles must typically be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers (including Editorial Review).
  • Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers (double blind review)
  • Reviewing process will consider novelty, objectivity, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references.
  • The final decision of manuscript acceptance shall be made by the Editorial Board according to reviewers critical comments.
  • Section Editor will send the final decision regarding the submission to the corresponding author based on the reviewer’s recommendation.
  • JOCRSE Editorial Board shall protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers. 

    Appropriate Authorship and Acknowledgement

    All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g., responding to reviewers’ comments).

    Authors should not use acknowledgements misleadingly to imply a contribution or endorsement by individuals who have not, in fact, been involved with the work or given an endorsement.

    Duties of Reviewers 

    Peer reviewers assist the chief editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the chief editor.

    Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Reviewers should decline from reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors.

    Duties of Editors

    The chief editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The chief editor may be guided by the journal’s editorial and advisory boards. The chief editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript while handling it in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Plagiarism Policy for Journal of Critical Realism in Socio-Economic (JOCRISE)

    1. Introduction
    The Journal of Critical Realism in Socio-Economic (JOCRISE) is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in academic publishing. Plagiarism is a serious ethical violation that undermines the integrity of scholarly work and will not be tolerated. Authors must ensure that their submissions are original and properly cited. This policy defines plagiarism, outlines detection methods, and details the actions taken in cases of suspected plagiarism.

    2. Definition of Plagiarism
    Plagiarism occurs when an author presents another person’s work—whether text, data, or ideas—without proper acknowledgment or permission. Forms of plagiarism include but are not limited to:

    • Literal Copying: Direct reproduction of another work, in whole or in part, without proper citation or authorization.

    • Substantial Copying: Reproduction of a significant portion of a work without proper attribution. This includes cases where even a small but essential part of the work is copied.

    • Paraphrasing: Restating another author’s ideas or arguments in different words without appropriate citation. This form of plagiarism can be difficult to detect and is taken seriously.

    3. Plagiarism Detection and Prevention
    JOCRISE employs plagiarism detection software to screen all submissions prior to review. Authors are strongly encouraged to check their manuscripts for originality before submission. Proper citation practices and adherence to academic referencing standards are mandatory.

    4. Handling Plagiarism Complaints
    Plagiarism allegations may be reported by reviewers, editors, or readers. Upon receiving a complaint, the journal will:

    1. Conduct an initial assessment by comparing the submitted work with the alleged source.

    2. If plagiarism is evident, notify the corresponding author and request an explanation.

    3. Consult the editorial board and complainant to determine the severity of the case.

    4. Take appropriate actions based on the findings.

    5. Recommended Actions
    Depending on the severity of the plagiarism, the following measures may be taken:

    • Minor plagiarism (e.g., improper citation, unintentional paraphrasing): The author will be required to revise and properly attribute sources before further review.

    • Moderate plagiarism (e.g., substantial copying without citation): The manuscript will be rejected, and the author may face a temporary ban from submitting to the journal.

    • Severe plagiarism (e.g., extensive verbatim copying, self-plagiarism, or repeated offenses): The manuscript will be rejected, the author’s institution may be informed, and the author may be permanently banned from submitting future work.

    6. Ethical Responsibility of Authors
    Authors are responsible for ensuring their work is original and properly credited. Any use of prior research—whether their own or others’—must be appropriately referenced. Authors must avoid self-plagiarism and ensure their work does not significantly overlap with previous publications.

    7. Final Decision
    The final decision on plagiarism cases rests with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board. JOCRISE reserves the right to retract published articles if plagiarism is discovered post-publication.

    By submitting a manuscript to JOCRISE, authors agree to adhere to this plagiarism policy. Any violations will be taken seriously to uphold the integrity and credibility of academic research.