SENTRALISASI is a scholarly journal published by the Faculty of Economics, Universitas Muhammadiyah Sorong (UNAMIN), in collaboration with the university's Research and Community Service unit. The journal publishes empirical research, conceptual and theoretical studies, literature reviews, and viewpoints in economics and related fields, including management, accounting, and development economics. Reviewers are expected to assess submitted manuscripts within the journal's stated aims and scope and to provide fair, evidence-based evaluations that support the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. These expectations are informed by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Peer review is intended to assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision and to help authors improve the clarity, rigor, originality, and scholarly contribution of their manuscripts. Reviewers should provide an objective assessment of the manuscript's strengths and limitations rather than making judgments based on personal preferences or the author's institutional background. This principle follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasize fair, honest, unbiased, and constructive assessments.

Reviewers should accept an invitation only when they have appropriate expertise in the subject matter, methodology, theoretical framework, or analytical approach of the manuscript. If a manuscript falls outside their area of competence, reviewers should inform the editor promptly and decline the invitation or clearly identify the limitations of their assessment. This requirement is consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which advise reviewers to undertake reviews only when they possess the relevant expertise.

Reviewers should also consider whether they can complete the assessment within the requested timeframe and whether any professional, financial, personal, or institutional relationship could compromise their impartiality. If a potential conflict of interest exists, reviewers must disclose it to the editor before proceeding so that the editor can determine whether the review should be reassigned. This expectation is supported by COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE Core Practice 4 on Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, discuss, or disclose manuscript content, review materials, editorial correspondence, or the identity of participants in the review process to unauthorized individuals without the editor's permission. This requirement follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which require reviewers to respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process.

Reviewers must not use unpublished data, arguments, methods, results, or ideas obtained through peer review for their own research, professional advantage, or personal benefit. Any consultation with another person about a manuscript must first be authorized by the editor, and the confidentiality obligations remain applicable to anyone permitted to assist with the review. These requirements are based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviews must be objective, balanced, respectful, and supported by clear reasoning. Reviewers should identify specific strengths, weaknesses, methodological concerns, and areas requiring improvement, and should provide relevant evidence or references wherever appropriate. Personal criticism, insulting language, discriminatory remarks, unsupported allegations, and hostile or defamatory comments are not acceptable. These standards reflect the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which require constructive, professional, and evidence-based feedback.

Reviewers should assess a manuscript according to its scholarly merit and relevance rather than the author's nationality, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, seniority, personal characteristics, or professional relationships. Recommendations should be based on the quality of the work and the journal's published criteria. This approach is consistent with the impartiality and fairness principles described in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should evaluate whether a manuscript is relevant to the aims and scope of SENTRALISASI, presents a clear research problem or argument, engages appropriately with relevant literature, and makes a meaningful contribution to knowledge in economics or a related discipline. Reviewers should assess whether the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methods or analytical approach, results and discussion, conclusion, and references are appropriate to the manuscript type. This assessment should be guided by the journal's Author Guidelines and the ethical expectations set out in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should assess the appropriateness and transparency of the research design, data sources, sampling procedures where relevant, measurement instruments, analytical methods, and interpretation of findings. They should identify unsupported conclusions, inconsistencies between the research questions and findings, limitations that are not acknowledged, and methodological weaknesses that could affect the validity or reproducibility of the work. These recommendations are consistent with the COPE Core Practice 5 on Data and Reproducibility and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should evaluate whether the discussion is adequately supported by the findings and relevant literature, whether alternative explanations have been considered where appropriate, and whether the conclusions follow from the evidence presented. Recommendations for additional analyses or data collection should be scientifically justified, proportionate to the study, and reasonably achievable. Reviewers should avoid requesting unnecessary work that does not materially improve the manuscript. These practices are consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, which emphasize useful and constructive feedback.

Reviewers should alert the editor to concerns about possible plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated results, inappropriate image or data presentation, undisclosed competing interests, or other potential research-integrity problems. Concerns should be described factually and supported by specific examples or relevant sources where possible. Reviewers should not make public accusations or independently contact an author to investigate suspected misconduct without the editor's authorization. Such concerns should be referred to the editor for appropriate assessment under the journal's procedures, consistent with COPE Core Practice 1 on Allegations of Misconduct and the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Where a manuscript reports research involving human participants, personal data, or animals, reviewers should consider whether relevant ethical safeguards, approvals, consent procedures, and disclosures are adequately described for the type of research concerned. If important information appears to be missing, reviewers should explain the concern to the editor rather than assume that a breach has occurred. This approach is consistent with COPE Core Practice 6 on Ethical Oversight.

Reviewers should assess whether references are relevant and accurately used to support the manuscript's arguments. They must not request citations merely to increase their own citation counts, promote a particular journal, or manipulate citation metrics. Requests for additional references should have a clear scholarly justification. This requirement follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE-endorsed Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, which address publication integrity and citation manipulation.

Reviewers must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts when using digital tools and must not upload confidential manuscript content, unpublished data, or identifying information to external services where confidentiality and data protection cannot be assured. Reviewers should follow the journal's instructions concerning artificial intelligence (AI) and other external tools and remain personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their assessments. The confidentiality requirements in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers apply to the handling of manuscript materials during the review process.

Reviewers should not delegate the review to another person or use an AI system to generate an assessment of a confidential manuscript without the editor's prior authorization and compliance with the journal's applicable policies. If assistance is authorized, the reviewer should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that any required disclosure is made to the editor. The reviewer remains accountable for the submitted report. These safeguards are designed to uphold the confidentiality and accountability principles in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers should follow the instructions and assessment criteria supplied by SENTRALISASI and submit their reports through the journal's designated review system within the agreed deadline. Reports should distinguish major concerns that affect the validity, originality, or contribution of the manuscript from minor issues involving clarity, presentation, language, formatting, or references. Reviewers should provide specific and actionable recommendations rather than vague statements. These expectations follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Where the review system permits confidential comments to the editor and separate comments to the author, reviewers should ensure that the two sections are professional and consistent. Substantive criticism and recommendations intended to help improve the manuscript should normally be communicated to the author, while confidential comments should be reserved for information that the editor legitimately needs to assess the submission or manage the review process. Confidential comments must not be used to make inappropriate personal attacks or unsupported allegations. This approach reflects the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection, according to the options provided by the journal's review system. The recommendation must be supported by the issues identified in the report and must not be based on personal preference, the author's identity, or considerations unrelated to scholarly quality. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editor, who considers the review reports alongside the journal's scope, standards, and editorial policies. This allocation of responsibilities is consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE Core Practice 9 on Peer Review Processes.

Reviewers should complete reviews within the agreed timeframe and notify the editor promptly if circumstances prevent them from meeting the deadline. If a reviewer cannot provide a timely or competent assessment, the reviewer should decline the invitation or discuss the situation with the editor as early as possible. Timely communication supports an efficient and well-managed peer-review process, as encouraged by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE Core Practice 9 on Peer Review Processes.

Reviewers must follow the review model and anonymization instructions communicated by SENTRALISASI. The journal's current author guidelines refer to blind review and instruct authors to follow the relevant anonymization requirements. Reviewers should therefore avoid including identifying information in review files or comments when anonymity is required and should not attempt to identify authors unless the journal's stated procedure permits it and the information is necessary for a legitimate review-related reason. The journal should clearly communicate its review model and procedures in accordance with COPE Core Practice 9 on Peer Review Processes and the COPE-endorsed Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

If reviewers disagree with one another or identify substantially different assessments of a manuscript, they should explain their reasoning clearly and allow the editor to evaluate the competing views. Reviewers should not contact other reviewers to pressure them to change their assessments or attempt to influence the editorial decision outside the journal's established process. The editor is responsible for managing disagreements and determining whether further review or clarification is necessary. These practices are consistent with COPE Core Practice 9 on Peer Review Processes, which addresses the need for policies and processes for handling peer-review disputes and appeals.

SENTRALISASI may acknowledge reviewers for their contributions, subject to the journal's confidentiality requirements and any applicable consent or disclosure procedures. Reviewer identities and review reports must not be publicly disclosed unless this is consistent with the journal's stated review policy and the relevant individuals have been appropriately informed. The journal should manage reviewer information transparently while protecting the integrity of its review process, in line with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE-endorsed transparency principles.

Reviewers who encounter ethical questions that cannot be resolved through these guidelines should contact the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief and provide the relevant details confidentially. The journal should periodically review its peer-review procedures and reviewer guidance to ensure that the published policy accurately reflects its actual workflow and remains consistent with recognized publication-ethics standards. This commitment is informed by COPE's Core Practices, particularly its guidance on journal management, conflicts of interest, and peer-review processes.