Publication in SJN depends solely on scientific validity and coherence as judged by our editors and peer reviewers, who also assess whether the work is clearly written and represents a useful contribution to the neurological sciences. SJN operates a double-blind peer-review model.
Process at a Glance & Estimated Timeline
| Stage | What happens | Estimated time |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Initial (desk) evaluation | The Editor checks scope, originality, completeness, and runs similarity screening. Manuscripts that are insufficiently original, scientifically flawed, or outside the journal’s neurological scope are returned without external review. | Within 1 week |
| 2. Double-blind peer review | At least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant neuroscience field assess scientific validity, methodology, ethics, and clarity. Author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other. | 3–6 weeks |
| 3. Editorial decision | The Editor reaches a decision—accept, minor/major revision, or reject—based on the reviewer reports and, where necessary, advice from the Editorial Board. | 1–2 weeks |
| 4. Revision & re-review | Authors revise and respond point-by-point; substantive revisions are returned to the original reviewers. | Per author |
| 5. Production & publication | Accepted articles are copy-edited, typeset, assigned a Crossref DOI, and published open access. | 2–4 weeks |
1. Initial (Desk) Evaluation
The Editor first evaluates every manuscript. Although rare, an exceptional manuscript may be accepted at this stage. Those rejected here are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, or fall outside the aims and scope of SJN. Manuscripts meeting the minimum criteria are passed to expert reviewers.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated by reviewers who assess whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, whether it duplicates already-published work, and whether it is sufficiently clear for publication. Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is original, stating its objectives and the knowledge gap clearly;
- Is methodologically sound;
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines;
- Has results/findings clearly presented that support the conclusions;
- Correctly references previous relevant work.
Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy-edit manuscripts; language correction is not part of peer review.
3. Decision & Editorial Independence
Reviewers advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject. The Editor reaches a decision based on these reports and, where necessary, consults the Editorial Board. The Editor’s decision is final and is never influenced by commercial interests or the origin of the authors.
Becoming a Reviewer
Sriwijaya Journal of Neurology (SJN)
Phlox Institute: Indonesian Medical Research Organization
Editor-in-Chief: Despian Januandri, PhD
Jl. Sirna Raga No. 99, Delapan Ilir, Ilir Timur Tiga, Palembang, South Sumatera, Indonesia
E-mail: sriwijayajournalneurology@gmail.com · Phone: +62 877-8809-0173 · e-ISSN 2987-1425
Licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.