Peer Review Policy

SUSJ employs a double-blind peer review system: the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure maximum impartiality and objectivity.

Review type

Double-blind

Reviewers

At least two, and a third if their assessments conflict

Review period

Two weeks from the reviewer's assignment

Evaluation criteria

Manuscripts that meet the initial submission criteria are sent to at least two expert reviewers in the relevant field, selected based on their academic qualifications and expertise. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript against specific criteria, including:

  • Originality.
  • Methodological soundness.
  • Clarity of presentation.
  • Validity of analysis.
  • Contribution to the field.
  • Adherence to academic ethics.

Publication decisions

The final publication decision is based on the peer review outcomes and can be one of the following:

  1. Accept without changes.
  2. Accept after minor revisions.
  3. Accept after major revisions (which may require re-review).
  4. Reject, with clear and justified reasons provided.

The journal's commitments

  • Maintaining the confidentiality of all information exchanged during the review process.
  • Respecting authors' right to respond to reviewers' comments.
  • Basing publication decisions solely on scientific merit, free from personal or institutional bias.
  • Handling all manuscripts with integrity and fairness, and avoiding any potential conflicts of interest.

The full workflow is described on the Publication Procedures page.