Initial Manuscript Screening

• The editorial board screens manuscripts for scope alignment, originality, ethical compliance, and formatting.
• Submissions failing to meet the journal’s standards may be returned for revision or rejected outright.

Assignment to Reviewers

• Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
• The double-blind review ensures anonymity between authors and reviewers.
• The selection of reviewers is based on subject matter expertise, publication history, and previous reviewing experience.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

1. Originality and Novelty – Does the study present new insights?
2. Scientific Rigor and Methodology – Is the research design sound and reproducible?
3. Clarity and Structure – Is the manuscript well-organized and clearly written?
4. Ethical Compliance – Does the research adhere to ethical standards?
5. Significance and Impact – Does the study contribute to the field?

Review Outcome and Decision

Based on reviewers’ feedback, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept as it is – No further revisions required.
• Accept with minor revisions – Small changes suggested, no need for another round of review.
• Major revisions required – Authors must address significant concerns before reconsideration.
• Reject – Manuscript does not meet journal standards.

Revision and Resubmission

• Authors are given a specific timeframe (e.g., 2–4 weeks) to address reviewers’ comments.
• The corresponding author is expected to submit an updated version along with the track changes, point by point response (rebuttal), together with the revised manuscript.
• Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers before a final decision is made.

Final Editorial Decision

• The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations.
• Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, formatting, and proof-checking before publication.

Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the quality, integrity, and impact of the SLJIHS. Their responsibilities include:

Providing Constructive Feedback

• Reviews should be objective, fair, and constructive, helping authors to improve their work.
• Comments should be specific, evidence-based, and free from personal bias.

Maintaining Confidentiality

• Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript outside the review process.
• Manuscripts should not be used for personal research purposes.

Assessing Scientific Merit and Ethical Compliance

• Identify methodological flaws, logical inconsistencies, and ethical concerns.
• Ensure adherence to ethical guidelines for human and animal research.

Suggesting Necessary Revisions

• Recommend changes that enhance clarity, accuracy, and completeness.
• Suggest additional references or analyses where appropriate.

Timely and Professional Review

• Complete the review within the specified timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks).
• If unable to review, notify the editorial office promptly to avoid publication delays.

Declaring Conflicts of Interest

• Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, institutional).
• If a conflict exists, the editor may reassign the manuscript to another reviewer.