Double-blind peer review
SJS applies double-blind peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during review. Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are evaluated by at least three independent reviewers with relevant expertise before an acceptance decision. There is no fast-track exemption from external review for research articles or case reports.
Editorial screening
Editors assess scope, completeness, originality, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and suitability for external review. A submission may be returned for clarification or rejected at this stage. Authors must supply a separate title page and remove identifying details from the blinded manuscript and file properties.
Stages of review and expected timeframes
SJS publishes the stages a manuscript passes through and the time each stage is expected to take. The same sequence, with the same timeframes, is set out step by step in the Submission Process.
| Step | Stage | Expected time | What happens |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Submission | — | The editorial office records the submission and checks the article type, template, cover letter, title page, blinded manuscript, supporting files, and required declarations. |
| 02 | Editorial assessment | 1–3 days | Editors assess aims and scope, originality, scholarly quality, basic methodological suitability, and similarity. |
| 03 | OJS onboarding | — | Manuscripts that pass editorial assessment are entered into the OJS workflow and the corresponding author receives account details for tracking. |
| 04 | Double-blind peer review | 2–4 weeks | At least three independent reviewers assess scientific substance, surgical or clinical relevance, methodology, analysis, interpretation, ethics, and reporting quality. |
| 05 | Editorial decision | — | After all three reviews are received the editor synthesises the recommendations and determines one of four outcomes: accept, minor revision, major revision, or decline. |
| 06 | Author revision | 1–2 weeks | Authors submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing every reviewer and editor comment. |
| 07 | Re-evaluation | — | The revised manuscript is reassessed by the reviewers and the editor. When the revisions meet publication standards, SJS issues a formal Letter of Acceptance. |
| 08 | Copyediting and proofreading | about 1 week | The accepted manuscript is copyedited and proofread, and the author approves the edited version. |
| 09 | Final proof and production | — | A galley proof is issued for the author’s final check; after approval the manuscript enters production and is published. |
These are the timeframes the journal works to, not a guarantee: no acceptance date or review duration is promised, and a manuscript needing additional review, further revision, or specialist advice will take longer. Authors are told when a stage is running beyond its expected time, and may ask for a progress update at any point by writing to the editorial office.
Similarity screening
Every submission is screened for textual overlap during editorial assessment (step 02), before any reviewer is invited, and may be screened again after substantive revision. Similarity checking is supported by ORCA; all editorial judgments remain the responsibility of SJS editors.
A similarity percentage is not, by itself, a finding of plagiarism. The editor reads the match report and considers the location, nature, extent, attribution, and context of each overlap; properly attributed quotations and standard methodological language are assessed in context. How findings are classified and what follows from them is set out in the Similarity and Plagiarism Policy.
External assessment and decisions
Reviewers evaluate the scientific or scholarly contribution, methods, evidence, interpretation, ethical safeguards, reporting, and relevance of the work. For case reports and material containing potentially identifiable information, they also assess whether consent for publication and adequate protection of identity are documented. Reviewers provide reasoned recommendations and constructive comments.
The handling editor considers the reports and may request revisions or additional review. Authors must provide a point-by-point response and a revised manuscript. The editor is responsible for the decision; a favourable report does not guarantee acceptance. Revised work may be returned to reviewers.
Independence and confidentiality
Reviewers and editors must disclose competing interests and decline or recuse themselves when impartiality is compromised. Reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal advantage, contact authors directly about the review, or share confidential submissions without permission. Suspected misconduct must be reported to the editor, not investigated through unauthorized disclosure.
Submissions by editors or board members are handled by an independent editor who has no relevant competing interest. The author-editor has no role in selecting reviewers or making the decision. The same minimum of three independent reviewers applies.
See Complaints and Appeals and Publication Ethics and Authorship.
Special issues and guest editors
Any special issue is subject to the same scope, ethics, double-blind review, and minimum of three independent reviewers as regular submissions. The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight, verifies the expertise and interests of guest editors, and assigns guest-editor-authored submissions to an independent editor. Special-issue content is clearly identified.