Log in

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Instructions to peer reviewers

Editorial Board requests the peer reviewers to ensure the following requirements in a submitted manuscript:

• Research or review paper is well designed and executed.
• Presentation of methods will permit replication.
• Data are unambiguous and properly analyzed.
• Conclusions are supported by data.
• New knowledge is added to the field of study

Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of being bias personally or professionally. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on its relevance to scope of the journal. Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and completing the review within the requested time frame. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Provide written, unbiased feedback on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with rationale for the opinion.
• Provide the review immediately within 14 days.
• Indicate if the writing is clear, concise, and relevant. Rate the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to readers.
• Avoid personal comments or criticism.
• Refrain from direct author contact.
• Maintain the confidentiality of the review process by not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper at all.
• Alert the Editor to any potential personal or financial conflict of interest you may have and decline to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
• Determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work and suggest ways to improve it.
• Avoid comments to authors directly on acceptance or rejection of the paper; include such remarks as confidential comments for editors.
• Note any ethical concerns, such as substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published article or any manuscript concurrently submitted elsewhere.
• Ensure that published articles meet standards of the journal.
• Protect readers from incorrect or flawed research or studies that cannot be validated by others.
• Be alert to any failure to cite relevant work by other scientists.
• Strictly follow the reviewer’s report form given by the Coordinating Editor.

Editorial Policies

The SLJAE adopts the double-blind peer review process. The received papers are initially checked for the scope and the plagiarism and the content at the editorial board meeting and then two reviewers are assigned for each paper in the same or related fields. Reviewers are given 14 working days. However, the peer review process normally takes from 04 to 08 weeks. It is assured that the whole process will not take more than 12 weeks. Once the reviewing process is over, the manuscript will be sent to the corresponding author with the reviewers comments and the author will be given a maximum period of 4 weeks to attend to the reviewers comments, if the manuscript is accepted. If there is a disagreement between the reviewers, the manuscript would be sent to a third reviewer as suggested by the Editorial Board. The final decision regarding the acceptance/rejection will be made by the Editorial Board based on the comments of the reviewers.

Section Policies