Recent Articles

Strategic insights for sustainable conservation area development in TN Babul: SWOT and TOWS analysis approach
Debt and life satisfaction: Unraveling the well-being divide among households in Abu Dhabi
Inflation, unemployment and crime rate in Nigeria
The effect of competition and industrial concentration on banking stability: The case of Vietnam
Capital structure and profitability of Vietnamese commercial banks: Evidence from Monte Carlo simulation via the Bayes

APC Discount & Waiver Policy – Conscientia Beam

At Conscientia Beam, Article Processing Charges (APCs) sustain essential publishing services including peer review, editorial work, production, hosting, archiving, and platform maintenance. To promote equitable access to scholarly publishing, we offer a structured APC Discount & Waiver Policy for authors facing financial barriers.

Objectives
The policy supports early-career researchers and authors from UN-classified Least Developed Countries (LDCs), enabling important research to reach a global audience.

Discount Categories

Full Waiver – Top 2% Most Cited Scientists (2024/2025)
For corresponding authors listed among the Top 2% Most Cited Scientists (as per Stanford/Elsevier or equivalent).
50% Discount – LDC Authors
For authors whose primary affiliation is in a UN-designated LDC, with proof of institutional affiliation.
50% Discount – Student Authors
For manuscripts where the corresponding author (and most co-authors) are current students, with proof of enrolment and financial need.

Application

Request a Discount Application Form via waiver@conscientiabeam.com after manuscript acceptance. Submit with all required documentation for evaluation. Discounts are not retroactive and granted once every two years.

This policy reflects our commitment to making scholarly publishing inclusive, fair, and accessible.

Peer Review Policy

Our peer review policy has three main features:

This policy is designed to evaluate the validity and quality of articles prior to publication. This supports the maintenance of the integrity of the knowledge domain to which the articles belongs and filters out irrelevant and poor-quality manuscripts (Eysenbach &Till, 2001).
Our peer reviewers ensure that data is clearly presented and findings and conclusions are adequately supported by data.
We follow the double-blind review process, which means neither authors nor reviewers are aware of each other’s identities or affiliations throughout the review process. Authors are instructed to prepare their manuscripts in such a way that their identities are not revealed. This anonymity prevents bias from either side.

Regarding plagiarism, replication, and duplication, we adhere to the COPE guidelines. In addition, as a Crossref member, Journal of Social Economics Research (JSER) uses similarity checking tools recommended by Crossref. To ensure the originality of content, JSER uses iThenticate software, a powerful, user-friendly tool, to detect plagiarism.

Additionally, in order to ensure publication ethics are applied throughout the peer review process, JSER has clear and distinct policies for conflict of interest, human rights, and informed consent (COPE, 2011, 2015). To comply with the guidelines set out by COPE, we require authors to clearly state any conflict of interest regarding financial and non-financial matters. In cases where human subjects are involved, or if any research shows human health intervention, JSER requires authors to submit their research for approval to their institutional ethics committee or review board. JSER also ensures that authors have obtained informed consent from the participants, who are permitted to opt out of the research process at any stage. See publication ethical guidelines of JSER for more details: http://www.conscientiabeam.com/journal/35/publication_ethics.html.

Our research articles, therefore, convey scientific validity and compatibility with state-of-the-art knowledge. The articles are not only comprehensible but also offer a valuable contribution to the knowledge domain.

References
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2015, November). Flowcharts on how to handle common ethical problems. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-publication-ethics-flowcharts-full-set.pdf Eysenbach G and Till JE (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. The BMJ, 323: 1103-1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103
https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/