Double-blind peer review

SJFM 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.

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. No acceptance date or review duration is guaranteed.

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 Reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal advantage, contact authors directly about the review, or share confidential submissions without permission.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.