SJIM is committed to a rigorous, fair, and timely peer-review process that safeguards the scientific and clinical quality and integrity of every article it publishes. All submissions are handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and the COPE Core Practices. Every manuscript passes through three sequential stages — initial (desk) evaluation, double-blind peer review, and editorial decision — followed by production and publication.

Process at a Glance & Estimated Timeline

1. Initial (Desk) Evaluation

Every manuscript is first assessed by the editorial office together with the Editor-in-Chief. The manuscript is screened for textual similarity and evaluated for suitability to the journal's aim and scope and for compliance with the Author Guidelines and ethical requirements (including ethics approval and patient-consent documentation). Manuscripts that fall outside the scope, show an unacceptable level of similarity, or lack the required declarations are declined or returned to the authors without external review. A decision at this stage is reached within one (1) week.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass desk evaluation are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers and undergo double-blind peer review, in which the identities of the authors and the reviewers are mutually concealed. Reviewers assess the originality, scientific and clinical validity, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and clarity of the work, and provide constructive, evidence-based recommendations. This stage is normally completed within two to four (2–4) weeks.

3–5. Decision, Production & Independence

On the basis of the reviewers' reports, the handling editor formulates a recommendation and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision (accept; accept with minor revision; major revision; or reject); the decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, author proofreading, and DOI registration. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific and clinical merit of the work and are independent of any commercial interest or the authors' ability to pay any charge; all manuscripts are treated as confidential. Appeals against an editorial decision should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and are handled in accordance with COPE guidance.