• 2H7A5189.JPG
  • F6.jpg
  • 1Mou_Mendela-5.jpg
  • F7.jpg
  • photo_2022-02-02_15-06-15.jpg
  • photo_2022-02-02_15-05-54.jpg
  • F9.jpg
  • photo_2022-02-02_15_06_13.jpg
  • 2H7A1721.JPG
  • 1Mou_Mendela-3.jpg
  • F8.jpg
  • Cafeteria.jpg
  • F10.jpg
  • _H7A4385.JPG
  • Sport .jpg
  • Library.JPG
  • meeting.jpg
  • 2H7A5644.jpg
  • F3.jpg
  • 2H7A5386.JPG
  • 2H7A5756.JPG
  • F5.jpg
  • 2H7A8882.JPG
  • photo_2023-05-15_05-26-48.jpg
  • 1Mou_Mendela-2.jpg

Who's Online

We have 93 guests and no members online


Online Submission

To facilitate the rapid publication and reduce administrative costs, SJSIS accepts only electronic submissions both in word and PDF. For some reasons it is possible to summit in hard copy. SJSIS follows double-blind system for peer-reviewing in the intended field of study/ discipline.

1.1     Paper Selection and Publication Process

  1. After receiving a manuscript, the Editor gives code or identity number to the manuscript. The author and reviewers may use this in further correspondence for enquiries.
    ii.    After receiving a manuscript, the Editor sends an E-mail of confirmation to the corresponding author within 1-5 working days. If the author does not receive this confirmation in this given time, s/he has to contact without delay the contact person/editor.
    iii.    Initial decisions are held by Editors-in-Chief and submitted manuscripts will undergo unbiased preliminary assessment for the suitability to the scope of the journals.
    iv.    As an extension to the process, the assessed manuscripts are returned to the author for revision if they are not relevant and consistent to the guidelines of the journal. This saves the precious time of the reviewers and speeds up the review process.
    v.    If/when the assessed manuscripts are found relevant and consistent to the policy or guide of the journal, they will be forwarded to at-least two expert reviewers in the field.
    vi.    Both reviewers and authors’ identities remain anonymous. Reviewers are given 2-3 weeks to send their fair and constructive reviews to Editor, and Editors-in-Chief are aimed to take the final decision within 6 weeks from the manuscript submission.

           vii.    The editorial board members decide accepting or rejecting a manuscript based on reports from at least the two reviewers.

           viii.   The result of review is notified by E-mail.

  1. The authors revise paper provided that his manuscript is accepted.
  2. After publication, the corresponding author will receive two copies of printed journals, free of charge.
  3. E-journal in PDF can be downloaded freely from the journal’s webpage.

1.2. Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere

Peer reviewers should:

  1. only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
  2. Finish the review within short period (at most 3 weeks). If you do not think you can complete the review within this time frame, please let the editor know and/or if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer.
  3. Respect the confidentiality of peer review & not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal. In short, the article you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. If you would like to discuss the article with a colleague, please ask the editor first.
  4. not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  5. declare all potential conflicting of interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  6. not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  7. Review the manuscript fairly and objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. If the research reported in the manuscript is flawed, criticize the science, not the scientist. Refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
  8. acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
  9. provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  10. recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

Visitors Counter



Oromia Health Bureau

Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute

Oromo Research and Cultural  Development Center Ethiopian Radiation Protection Authority Books for Africa




The University of Kansas

Southern Medical University

Vellore Institute of Technology University of Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia Saharsa Crop Science



Catholic Relief Service

Jiangsu University

Nelson Mandela University Netherlands Senior Experts Group Lebniz University



Indiana State University –USA

Ohio State University -USA

Geological Survey of Ethiopia National Animal Health Diagnostic and Investigation Center Entrepreneurship Development Center




STEM Power Ethiopia

Livestock Development Institute

Salale Development Group Initiative Environment and Coffee Forest Forum Federal Forest Development Institute