Editorial Policy

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment for scope, originality, and quality. Submissions that pass the preliminary review are subjected to a double-blind peer review, with at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, absence of conflicts of interest, and prior review experience. Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts based on reviewers’ comments; final acceptance lies with the Editorial Board of the journal. The average time from submission to first decision is targeted at 4-6 weeks.

Authorship Criteria

Authorship must reflect substantial contributions to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or manuscript drafting/revision. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors meet authorship criteria and approve the final version. Contributions not meeting authorship criteria should be acknowledged separately.

Open Access

SJIP follows an open access policy, ensuring free availability of published material to readers worldwide.

Corrections, Retractions and Appeals

Errata will be issued for minor errors that do not affect the scientific validity of the article. Retractions will be issued in cases of major ethical violations, data falsification, or duplicate publication. Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request to the Editor-in-Chief, accompanied by justifications and supporting evidence.

Archiving and Indexing

The journal ensures long-term digital preservation of all published content. Efforts are ongoing to index the journal in various databases for broader visibility.

Responsibilities of Editorial Board

Maintain academic integrity and uphold high standards of scientific publishing. Ensure timely, fair, and unbiased peer review. Safeguard confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities. Promote diversity, inclusivity, and equitable representation of authors and reviewers across disciplines and geographies.

Peer Review Policy

SJIP has transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers in this process must conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair, and timely review, which will enhance the quality of the manuscript and publications.

Peer Review Model

This has five steps, indicated below:

1. Manuscript submission by the author
2. Initial checking by editorial office
3. Double-blind review
4. Manuscript revision by author(s)
5. Final editorial decision

Peer Review Process

1. The editorial office will conduct an initial screening of all submissions to assess completeness, compliance with the journal’s criteria, and overall suitability. Any deficiencies identified during this stage will be promptly communicated to the corresponding author.
2. After addressing the comments of initial screening by the corresponding author, the manuscript will be sent for peer review.
3. The editor will select two peer reviewers of the same specialty.
4. A double-blind peer review process will be followed.
5. A reviewer should accept/decline to review a submitted article within 48 hours.
6. The period for submission of review report will be two weeks.
7. A reminder will be sent if the reviewer does not submit the review report within two weeks. If the reviewer does not respond within one week after the reminder, the manuscript will be assigned to a third reviewer. 
8. Comments of the reviewers will be sent to the corresponding author and asked to make corrections according to the comments along with a rebuttal letter.
9. The Managing Editor will mediate all interactions between reviewers and corresponding author.
10. Peer reviews will not be published

Selection of Peer Reviewers

1. The peer reviewers will be selected taking into consideration their expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflicts of interest, and previous performance.
2. Ideally, the peer reviewer should have published more than 10 articles in the past decade.

3. The peer reviewer should be free from the following potential biases:

• Should not be an author in the manuscript.
• Should not have joint publications with any author of the submitted manuscript within the past five years.
• Should not be currently working at the same institution.
• Should not be a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder with any author of the submitted manuscript.

After Peer Review

1. The reviewers’ comments will be communicated to the author upon receipt.
2. The author will be given two weeks to address the reviewers’ comments.
3. The first reminder will be given to the author on the third week. If the author does not comply with the timelines, the second reminder will be given on the fourth week.
4. The article will be declined if no response is received after two reminders.
5. If revised article is received, it will be checked for incorporation of the suggested changes. If the changes are not incorporated, it will be sent back to the authors to incorporate the suggested changes.
6. If the revised article is approved, a letter of acceptance will be issued to the author.

Plagiarism Policy

SJIP follows a zero-tolerance policy towards plagiarism in all submitted manuscripts. These include the following:

1. Direct plagiarism: Copying text, figures, tables, or data verbatim from previously published sources without citation.
2. Self-plagiarism: Republishing one’s own previously published work in whole or in part, including data or images, without proper reference or disclosure.
3. Paraphrasing without attribution: Rewriting another author’s work with minor modifications but failing to acknowledge the original source.
4. Mosaic plagiarism: Mixing one’s own words with phrases, sentences, or data from other sources without acknowledgment.
5. Unattributed ideas: Presenting original concepts, hypotheses, or findings of others without credit.

Screening of Manuscripts

All submitted manuscripts are subjected to plagiarism detection software (iThenticate/Turnitin) prior to the peer review process. If significant overlap (>15% similarity, excluding references and standard phrases) is detected, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for revision, or in severe cases, rejected outright.

Consequences of Plagiarism

1. Minor plagiarism: Authors will be asked to revise the manuscript and provide proper citations.
2. Significant plagiarism: Manuscripts may be rejected without further review.
3. Post-publication discovery of plagiarism: If plagiarism is identified after publication, the article will be immediately retracted.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are required to ensure the following:

1. Originality of their submissions.
2. Provide proper citation and acknowledgment of all sources.
3. Obtain permission for any reproduced material (tables, figures, quotations, etc).
4. Disclose overlapping work under review or previously published.

Responsibilities of Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers and editors are expected to remain vigilant for possible plagiarism and report any suspected instances during the review process. The editorial board will then investigate and take necessary actions following Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines.

Archival Policy

SJIP recognizes the importance of permanent preservation, accessibility and security of its scholarly content. To guarantee maintenance and availability, a full archival copy of each article is stored in electronic format. Additionally, authors are encouraged to self-archive the final PDF version of their published articles into institutional and public repositories without requiring permission from the journal or publisher.

Note: All policies are subject to periodic review and updating in line with evolving standards of scholarly publishing, ethical guidelines, and technological advancements.