• Collaborative, Researcher Centricity, Quality.
• Our focus on transparency ensures that all relevant information is shared openly and honestly, allowing us to make informed decisions that are grounded in the facts.
• All published articles have been acknowledged by the reviewers and the handling editor. This acknowledgement serves as a testament to the quality and reliability of the work that has been published. It is an indication that all published articles are thoroughly reviewed to ensure that they meet the standards and guidelines of the publication. This is in line with our commitment to providing accurate and authentic information to our readers.
• Average time from submission to final decision: 10 days

How it works

Our collaborative peer review process is designed to enhance the quality of research while preserving the rights of researchers to submit their work for a rigorous, constructive, and transparent review.

We take the process of peer review with utmost seriousness. Our editorial board consists of highly accomplished and active researchers who have been appointed based on stringent excellence criteria. They meticulously analyze the research presented to them and subsequently endorse its validity by putting their names on the published article. We understand the importance of quality research and take great pride in ensuring that all articles published through our platform have undergone a rigorous peer-review process.

We firmly uphold the principle that peer review should be guided by well-defined and objective criteria that measure the validity and quality of the material under review. A rigorous, fair, constructive, accountable, and transparent process benefits everyone involved. Lastly, an efficient process ensures that we are making the most of our time and resources.

Our journal is proud to offer a unique and collaborative review forum that fosters unprecedented collaboration between authors, reviewers, and the handling editor. Through this platform, we strive to offer the highest quality service to all participants, ensuring that all parties involved receive the best possible support throughout the peer review process. Our team remains committed to continuous innovation, providing cutting-edge tools and services designed to facilitate an efficient and effective peer review process.

All submissions, including those that are part of themed Research Topic article collections, undergo the samehigh quality review process.

Principles of peer review

At SSJ, we remain committed to maintaining the highest quality standards for all manuscripts submitted to our publication through a strict peer review process. Our dedicated teams ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated on clear and objective criteria. Every submission that passes our rigorous standards is accepted for publication. Our evaluation process does not rely on perceived impact or rejection rates; we place a keen focus on the quality, credibility, and validity of presented work. Our editorial boards have been empowered to shape content decisions, and we are deeply committed to providing a seamless and transparent experience to all authors and reviewers.

At SSJ, we have a well-defined process for evaluating submitted articles. Our handling editors and reviewers conduct a thorough review of each article and may recommend rejection if it does not meet our acceptance criteria. The final decision rests with our editors, while the chief editors make acceptance and rejection decisions based on the thorough review process. We value the importance of rigorous peer review and strive to make prompt decisions while publishing high-quality research. Our acceptance criteria are carefully outlined, and articles that do not meet these standards may be rejected.

Manuscript quality standards

Our research integrity team plays a crucial role in maintaining the high standards of our research and ethical principles. We are committed to rejecting the publication of any manuscripts that do not meet our quality standards. We understand the importance of upholding the credibility of our publications, which is why our team thoroughly assesses all manuscripts to ensure that they meet the necessary criteria.

At SSJ, we uphold high editorial criteria and standards for publication. Prior to official publication, if there are any concerns raised by any review members regarding research integrity or peer-review, our team of Chief Editors and Chief Executive Editor will fully investigate the matter, regardless of the manuscript’s acceptance stage.

Acceptance criteria

We request that all submissions meet the necessary criteria to be accepted:

Valid research question and hypothesis, with a relevant theory to which the research question is being posed

Applies correct and transparent methodology, and the study design and materials are clearly laid out

Language and presentation are clear and adequate, figures and tables are in line with scientific norms and standards

In line with SSJ author guidelines on editorial and ethical policies

Determined by grounding in existing literature through sufficient referencing and appropriate coverage of the relevant literature.

Rejection criteria

A submission may be rejected at any stage before official publication of the article for the following reasons:

The manuscript does not have a valid research question or hypothesis

There are clear objective errors in the methodology of the study design, data collection, or analysis

The manuscript does not conform to our editorial policies as it is not original, is plagiarized, or is a duplication of previous work

The language and presentation of the manuscript is not of sufficient quality for a rigorous and efficient peer review to take place

The study violates our ethical policies by not complying with privacy protection guidelines, ethical review board approval guidelines, and internationally recognized standards for research involving humans or animals

The authors have not adhered to our authorship guidelines or have fabricated, falsified data or manipulated images and figures in a deceitful manner

The references are clearly biased (geographical, self-citation, school of thought, citation cartel) and do not reflect the current status of knowledge in the field

Based on biased or faulty analyses, the study’s conclusions are misleading and could even pose a public health threat

The study investigates a pseudoscientific research question.