Peer Review Process

1. Policy Statement

Sentralisasi is committed to maintaining the quality, originality, academic relevance, and ethical integrity of all articles published in the journal. All research manuscripts submitted for publication are subject to editorial screening and, where appropriate, independent peer review before an editorial decision is made. This policy is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Peer Review Processes guidance and the COPE Core Practices, particularly Core Practice 9: Peer Review Processes.
The journal aims to ensure that peer review is conducted fairly, objectively, confidentially, and transparently. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive assessments based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, methodology, originality, relevance, and contribution to the field, consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

2. Peer Review Model

Sentralisasi uses a double-anonymous peer review process as its intended review model. Under this model, authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers are not provided with the authors' identities during the review process, to the extent practicable. The journal will take reasonable steps to remove identifying information from manuscripts before sending them to reviewers.
The journal will describe its peer review model clearly and apply it consistently. The choice of review model and the procedures for protecting or disclosing identities should be transparent to authors, reviewers, and readers, in accordance with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.
Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, it cannot guarantee that reviewers and authors will never infer each other's identities from the content, citations, research topic, or other information contained in a manuscript.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial office will check whether the manuscript complies with the journal's submission requirements, formatting instructions, scope, and basic publication ethics requirements. The screening may include checks of completeness, originality, references, authorship information, ethical declarations, competing interests, and any required research ethics approval.
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will assess the manuscript's relevance to the journal, its apparent scholarly contribution, and its suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or raise substantial ethical concerns may be returned for improvement or rejected before external review, with an appropriate explanation where practicable.
Editorial screening is intended to ensure that manuscripts are handled consistently and that the review process is appropriate to the submission. The journal's screening procedures are informed by the COPE Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

4. Assignment of Independent Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening will be assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject matter, research methods, or theoretical framework of the manuscript. The editor will consider the reviewers' expertise, availability, professional qualifications, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.
Sentralisasi normally seeks assessments from at least two independent reviewers for research manuscripts requiring external peer review. The editor may seek additional assessments when the reviews conflict substantially, when specialist advice is required, or when further evaluation is necessary to reach a well-informed decision.
Reviewers must not accept an assignment if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot complete the review within the agreed period, or have a competing interest that could compromise their impartiality. COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers address reviewer competence, competing interests, professional responsibility, and timely review.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to their academic merit and suitability for publication. Depending on the article type, the review may consider originality, relevance to the journal's scope, clarity of research objectives, adequacy of the literature review, appropriateness of the methods, quality of data and analysis, validity of interpretations, coherence of conclusions, quality of references, and contribution to existing knowledge.
Reviewers should identify significant methodological limitations, unsupported claims, inconsistencies, possible ethical concerns, and relevant omissions in the literature. Their comments should help authors improve the manuscript and enable editors to make informed decisions, consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Reviewers should distinguish major issues affecting the validity or contribution of a manuscript from minor issues involving language, presentation, references, or formatting. They should provide clear reasoning and constructive recommendations rather than personal criticism or unsupported judgments.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. These recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision.
Acceptance indicates that the manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive further revision, subject to the editor's final checks. Minor revision indicates that limited changes are needed, while major revision indicates that substantial improvements or clarification are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered. Rejection indicates that the manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements or has deficiencies that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.
Reviewers must provide sufficient reasoning to support their recommendations and must not guarantee acceptance or attempt to determine the editorial outcome independently. The editor remains responsible for the final decision, in accordance with the COPE Core Practice on Peer Review Processes.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor will evaluate the reviewers' reports, the manuscript, and any relevant ethical or methodological concerns before making an editorial decision. The editor may accept a recommendation, request additional review, seek clarification, or reach a different decision when justified by the evidence and the journal's publication standards.
Editorial decisions will be based on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the journal's editorial scope. Decisions must not be improperly influenced by personal relationships, institutional affiliations, commercial interests, or other irrelevant considerations. These principles are consistent with the COPE Core Practices.
Authors will be informed of the editorial decision through the journal's submission system or official editorial communication. Where revisions are requested, the editor will communicate the principal issues that need to be addressed and, where appropriate, provide the reviewers' comments.

8. Manuscript Revision and Resubmission

Authors asked to revise their manuscripts must submit a revised version together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. If an author disagrees with a recommendation, the response should provide a clear academic justification supported by appropriate evidence or references.
The editor will assess whether the revision adequately addresses the concerns raised. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to other qualified reviewers when additional assessment is necessary. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.
If the revised manuscript fails to address essential concerns, introduces new substantive problems, or does not meet the journal's requirements, the editor may request further revision or reject the manuscript. The journal will communicate its decisions and relevant reasons as clearly as practicable, consistent with transparent editorial procedures described in the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

9. Confidentiality of Peer Review

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents, unpublished data, review reports, or editorial correspondence to unauthorized persons, nor use information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or financial advantage.
Reviewers must not share a manuscript with colleagues or other individuals for additional review without prior permission from the handling editor. Any approved additional assistance must be appropriately acknowledged and handled in accordance with the journal's confidentiality requirements. These responsibilities are set out in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Editors must also protect confidential information obtained during peer review and ensure that manuscripts and review reports are accessible only to authorized participants in the editorial process, subject to applicable policies and legal requirements.

10. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived competing interests before accepting a review assignment and must notify the editor if a relevant interest becomes apparent during the process. Such interests may include recent collaboration, close personal relationships, financial interests, institutional relationships, academic competition, or other circumstances that could reasonably affect impartiality.
Editors must assess disclosed competing interests and arrange alternative reviewers or handling editors when necessary. A person with a relevant competing interest should not participate in the affected review or editorial decision when impartiality could reasonably be questioned. These procedures follow the COPE Core Practice on Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

11. Research Ethics and Suspected Misconduct

Reviewers should alert the editor to credible concerns about plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, manipulated images or data, unethical research practices, inappropriate authorship, or other possible violations of publication ethics. Concerns should be explained clearly and supported by relevant information wherever possible.
Reviewers should not independently investigate or publicly accuse authors of misconduct. The editor will assess the concern, request further information where appropriate, and follow the journal's research misconduct procedures. When necessary, the journal may contact the authors' institution or another relevant research integrity authority. This approach is informed by the COPE Core Practice on Allegations of Misconduct.

12. Reviewer Conduct and Quality of Reports

Reviewers must provide objective, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive feedback. Reports should explain the reasons for criticism, identify relevant strengths and weaknesses, and offer useful suggestions for improvement. Reviewers must not include discriminatory, threatening, defamatory, or personally offensive comments.
Reviewers must not request that authors cite the reviewer's own work unless the references are genuinely relevant and justified. Reviewers must not use the review process to promote personal interests, delay competing research, obtain confidential information, or secure inappropriate professional advantage. These expectations are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

13. Review Timelines

Sentralisasi aims to conduct peer review within a reasonable period while allowing reviewers sufficient time to provide a careful and meaningful assessment. Review invitations, expected deadlines, reminders, and decisions will be managed by the editorial office according to reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
If delays occur, the editorial office may contact reviewers, invite alternative reviewers, or inform authors of significant delays where appropriate. The journal will not promise a guaranteed acceptance date or review duration that it cannot reasonably support. The importance of timely reviews and clear communication is addressed in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

14. Appeals and Disputes

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal through the journal's official editorial channel. The appeal should identify the decision being challenged and provide specific academic, methodological, factual, or procedural grounds for reconsideration.
The Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor who was not responsible for the original decision will assess the appeal where practicable. The journal may uphold the original decision, request further review, or reconsider the decision when new evidence or a substantive procedural concern justifies doing so.
Appeals will be handled fairly and without retaliation. Complaints concerning editorial conduct or the peer review process will be handled through the journal's applicable complaints procedure, informed by the COPE Core Practice on Complaints and Appeals.

15. Editorial Independence and Final Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for final editorial decisions and for ensuring that the peer review process is conducted in accordance with the journal's stated policies. Reviewers provide expert advice, but their recommendations do not replace the editor's independent assessment.
Editorial decisions must be protected from inappropriate commercial, financial, institutional, or personal influence. This commitment is consistent with the COPE Core Practices, which identify editorial independence and transparent journal management as essential elements of responsible scholarly publishing.

16. Transparency and Policy Review

Sentralisasi will make its peer review policy publicly accessible and ensure that the description of the review model, reviewer responsibilities, editorial decision-making, and relevant exceptions reflects the journal's actual practices. Where a published article has undergone a review process different from the journal's usual model, the journal will disclose that exception where appropriate.
The editorial board will periodically review this policy and update it when necessary to reflect changes in publication ethics, editorial practice, and relevant COPE guidance. This commitment is informed by the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.