1. Introduction
Journal of Social Economics Research (JSER) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic quality, research integrity, and publication ethics. The journal employs a rigorous peer review process to ensure that all published articles are original, scientifically sound, methodologically robust, and make a meaningful contribution to the fields of social economics and related disciplines.
Peer review serves as an essential quality control mechanism that supports the credibility of scholarly communication and advances knowledge through the evaluation of research by independent experts.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor. During this stage, manuscripts are assessed for:
-
Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal;
-
Compliance with the journal's submission guidelines;
-
Originality and scholarly significance;
-
Methodological rigor and scientific quality;
-
Ethical compliance and research integrity;
-
Clarity of writing and presentation.
Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal's minimum editorial and ethical standards may be rejected without external peer review.
3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process
JSER follows a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts do not contain information that could reveal their identities. Likewise, reviewers remain anonymous to authors unless disclosure is approved by the journal.
Following successful editorial screening, manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewers evaluate submissions objectively and provide recommendations to assist editors in making publication decisions.
The double-blind review process helps minimize potential bias and promotes fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.
4. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:
4.1 Originality and Contribution
Reviewers evaluate whether the manuscript presents original research, novel insights, or significant theoretical or practical contributions to the field of social economics.
4.2 Scientific and Methodological Quality
Reviewers assess the appropriateness of the research design, data collection methods, analytical techniques, and interpretation of results.
4.3 Validity of Results and Conclusions
Reviewers determine whether the findings are clearly presented and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the data and analysis provided.
4.4 Literature and Context
Reviewers examine the adequacy of the literature review and whether the study is properly situated within existing scholarly discussions.
4.5 Clarity and Presentation
Reviewers evaluate the overall organization, readability, language quality, and clarity of the manuscript.
5. Editorial Decisions
Based on reviewers' reports and editorial assessment, one of the following decisions may be issued:
-
Accept without revision;
-
Accept with minor revisions;
-
Major revisions required;
-
Reject with encouragement to resubmit;
-
Reject.
The final decision regarding publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.
6. Plagiarism Detection and Originality Verification
JSER is committed to publishing original scholarly work and preventing publication misconduct. All submitted manuscripts are screened for similarity and potential plagiarism using iThenticate through the Crossref Similarity Check service.
The journal does not tolerate:
-
Plagiarism;
-
Self-plagiarism;
-
Duplicate or redundant publication;
-
Data fabrication or falsification;
-
Citation manipulation;
-
Any other form of academic misconduct.
Cases of suspected misconduct are investigated in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Manuscripts found to violate ethical standards may be rejected, corrected, retracted, or subject to further investigation.
7. Conflict of Interest
Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the research, peer review, or editorial decision-making process.
Authors must provide a conflict of interest statement during manuscript submission. Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a significant conflict of interest exists.
8. Research Ethics and Human Participants
Research involving human participants must comply with recognized ethical principles and applicable institutional and national regulations.
Where applicable, authors must:
-
Obtain approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Ethics Committee, or equivalent authority prior to conducting the research;
-
Clearly state ethics approval information within the manuscript;
-
Ensure participant confidentiality and privacy are protected;
-
Conduct research in accordance with internationally accepted ethical standards.
Editors may request supporting documentation regarding ethics approval during the review process.
9. Informed Consent
For studies involving human participants, authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection.
Participants should be adequately informed about:
-
The purpose of the research;
-
Procedures involved in participation;
-
Potential risks and benefits;
-
Confidentiality protections;
-
Their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
Where personal data, photographs, interviews, or identifiable information are published, explicit consent for publication must also be obtained.
10. Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted to JSER are treated as confidential documents.
Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not:
-
Share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals;
-
Use unpublished information for personal or professional gain;
-
Disclose reviewer identities without authorization.
Confidentiality obligations continue after completion of the review process.
11. Appeals and Complaints
Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made in error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.
Complaints regarding editorial procedures, peer review practices, ethical issues, or publication misconduct are handled in accordance with the principles and procedures established by COPE.
12. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity
JSER adheres to the Core Practices and ethical principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and promotes responsible research and scholarly publishing.
Authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers are expected to uphold the highest standards of honesty, transparency, accountability, and professional conduct throughout the publication process.
Through its peer review system, JSER seeks to publish high-quality research that advances understanding of social and economic issues and contributes to evidence-based policy, theory, and practice.
References
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2021). COPE Core Practices. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
Crossref. (2024). Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate. Available at: https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2024). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for editors. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 317–328). World Scientific Publishing.
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103