SJOG is committed to a rigorous, fair, and timely peer-review process that safeguards the scientific and clinical quality of every article it publishes. All submissions are handled in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics 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. It 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 without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass desk evaluation are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers under a double-blind model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are mutually concealed. Reviewers assess originality, scientific and clinical validity, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and clarity. Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

• Is original, with clearly stated objectives and an explicit knowledge gap;
• Is methodologically sound and ethically conducted;
• Presents results that clearly support the conclusions;
• Correctly references previous relevant work.

Reviewers are not expected to copyedit manuscripts; language correction is not part of peer review.

3. Editorial Decision

Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision. Decisions are reached on the basis of the reports and, where necessary, in consultation with the Editorial Board.

4. Production & Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, author proofreading, and DOI registration, and are published open access under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Authors are asked to return proof corrections promptly to avoid delaying publication.

5. Independence, Confidentiality & Appeals

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 documents and are accessible only to the editorial office, the handling editor, and the assigned reviewers. Appeals against an editorial decision should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and are handled in accordance with COPE guidance.