Manuscript Type

1. General Policy

Sentralisasi accepts scholarly manuscripts classified into two main categories: Research Articles and Literature Reviews. Each submission must demonstrate academic relevance, a clearly defined purpose, appropriate scholarly methods, accurate reporting, and compliance with the journal's publication ethics and submission requirements.

The journal establishes these manuscript categories to clarify its publication scope and the expectations for authors and reviewers. This approach is consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendation that journals clearly communicate their editorial policies and peer-review procedures. See the official COPE Core Practices and the COPE Ethics Toolkit for Journal Editors and Publishers.

All submissions are subject to an initial editorial assessment to determine whether they fit the journal's scope, satisfy the applicable manuscript requirements, and are suitable for peer review. The journal's website should clearly describe its peer-review process, including who conducts the review, the review model, and any exceptions to the standard procedure, as recommended in the COPE Ethics Toolkit.

2. Research Article

A Research Article reports original research conducted by the authors. It should present a clearly defined research problem, objectives or research questions, an appropriate methodology, relevant results, a critical discussion, and conclusions supported by the findings. Research Articles should make an identifiable contribution to knowledge, theory, methods, policy, or professional practice within the scope of Sentralisasi.

A Research Article should normally contain the following elements, adapted to the requirements of the relevant discipline:

1. Title: A concise and informative title that accurately reflects the research topic and principal focus.

2. Abstract and Keywords: A concise summary of the research problem, objectives, methods, principal findings, and conclusions, accompanied by relevant keywords.

3. Introduction: The research context, problem statement, relevant literature, research gap, objectives, and significance of the study.

4. Methods: A sufficiently clear description of the research design, data sources or participants, procedures, instruments, analytical techniques, and relevant ethical considerations to allow readers to assess the credibility of the work.

5. Results: A clear presentation of the findings, supported where appropriate by tables, figures, statistical analyses, documentary evidence, or other relevant material.

6. Discussion: A critical interpretation of the findings in relation to the research objectives, relevant literature, theoretical perspectives, limitations, and implications.

7. Conclusion: A conclusion that follows from the evidence presented and addresses the research objectives without making unsupported claims.

8. Declarations and References: Relevant statements on funding, competing interests, author contributions, research ethics, data availability, acknowledgements, and references, as applicable to the manuscript and the journal's policies.

The structure may be adapted to the research design and disciplinary conventions, provided that the manuscript remains sufficiently transparent for editorial and scholarly evaluation. COPE's Core Practices address research integrity, ethical oversight, authorship, conflicts of interest, and the integrity of the published record; they do not prescribe one universal section structure for every research article.

Authors must report their research honestly and accurately. Data, findings, images, citations, and references must not be fabricated, falsified, manipulated, or presented in a misleading manner. The journal may investigate suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication, falsification, or other potential publication misconduct in accordance with its publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE Core Practices.

Research involving human participants, animals, personal information, or other ethically sensitive material must comply with applicable laws, institutional requirements, and relevant ethical standards. Authors should provide ethics approval, informed consent, or other documentation when applicable. COPE's Core Practices identify ethical oversight as an important element of responsible scholarly publishing.

Manuscripts must present an original contribution and must not be under consideration for publication by another journal at the same time. Related publications, overlapping datasets, and previous dissemination of the same or substantially similar findings must be disclosed where relevant. Suspected redundant or duplicate publication may be assessed using the journal's procedures and the relevant COPE publication ethics guidance.

3. Literature Review

A Literature Review critically examines, synthesizes, and evaluates existing scholarly publications on a clearly defined topic. It should establish the current state of knowledge, identify patterns and disagreements in the literature, assess the strengths and limitations of previous studies, and identify research gaps or directions for future investigation. A Literature Review must provide an analytical synthesis rather than merely a sequence of summaries of individual publications.

Depending on the review objective and methodology, Sentralisasi may consider the following forms of Literature Review:

1. Narrative Review: A critical and interpretive synthesis of relevant literature that explains major concepts, developments, debates, and research gaps. Authors should describe how the literature was identified and selected sufficiently to help readers understand the review's scope and limitations.

2. Systematic Review: A review that addresses a clearly formulated research question using explicit, systematic, and reproducible methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesize relevant studies. Authors should report the search strategy, information sources, eligibility criteria, study-selection process, appraisal methods, and synthesis approach, as applicable.

3. Scoping Review: A review that systematically maps the extent, range, characteristics, or nature of research available on a topic and identifies evidence gaps or areas requiring further study. Authors should explain the review question, search and selection methods, and approach to mapping the evidence.

4. Integrative or Critical Review: A review that critically integrates evidence, theories, concepts, or methods from relevant literature to develop a broader interpretation, conceptual framework, or new research propositions.

These review categories are journal-defined options, not a classification mandated by COPE. Authors should select the review type that accurately reflects the purpose and methods of their work and should report those methods transparently. COPE's Core Practices provide a publication ethics framework rather than a technical methodology standard for conducting systematic, scoping, narrative, or other literature reviews.

A Literature Review should normally include the following elements, adapted to the review type:

1. Title: A clear title identifying the topic and, where appropriate, the type or scope of the review.

2. Abstract and Keywords: A concise summary of the review objective, scope, methods used to identify and evaluate the literature, main synthesis findings, and conclusions.

3. Introduction: The background, rationale, review question or objectives, and significance of the topic.

4. Review Methodology: An explanation of the literature sources, databases or search platforms, search terms, time period, eligibility criteria, selection procedures, and synthesis or analytical approach, as appropriate to the review type.

5. Results or Thematic Synthesis: An organized presentation of the literature, including key findings, major themes, similarities, differences, and evidence patterns. Systematic and scoping reviews should report the selection and synthesis process in sufficient detail for readers to understand how the findings were derived.

6. Critical Discussion: An evaluation of the quality, consistency, limitations, and implications of the available evidence, including important gaps and unresolved questions.

7. Conclusion: A synthesis of the principal insights, limitations of the review, implications, and justified recommendations for future research or practice.

8. Declarations and References: Relevant declarations concerning funding, competing interests, author contributions, and other applicable matters, together with accurate and complete references.

The required methods and reporting detail should be proportionate to the type of review. A systematic review should not be presented as systematic unless its methods support that description. The journal's expectations for transparent reporting are consistent with the general editorial transparency principles in the COPE Ethics Toolkit; detailed review-methodology requirements should also be informed by appropriate discipline-specific reporting guidance.

Authors must represent the reviewed literature accurately and cite the original sources of ideas, methods, data, and findings. References must not be fabricated, and sources must not be selectively or misleadingly represented to create an inaccurate account of the evidence. Potential plagiarism, citation manipulation, or redundant publication may be assessed under the journal's publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE Core Practices.

Authors should disclose any relevant competing interests and explain the funding or other support received for the review, where applicable. The review must provide a fair and balanced account of the available evidence, including important findings that differ from the authors' interpretations. These expectations align with COPE's emphasis on transparent reporting, conflict-of-interest management, and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record in its Core Practices.

4. Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

Research Articles and Literature Reviews are subject to editorial assessment and, where suitable, the journal's stated peer-review process. The editor may return a submission for revision before peer review if it does not meet the journal's scope, manuscript-type requirements, or basic reporting and ethical standards.

Acceptance decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance, methodological or analytical soundness, originality, reporting quality, and compliance with the journal's policies. A manuscript's classification as a Research Article or Literature Review does not guarantee acceptance. COPE recommends that journals clearly explain their peer-review arrangements and avoid guaranteeing acceptance of initial submissions; see the COPE Ethics Toolkit for Journal Editors and Publishers.

The journal will handle concerns about research or publication misconduct in accordance with its publication ethics policies. Where a concern is identified, the editorial team may seek clarification, request supporting information, or follow relevant COPE guidance. The journal's procedures should be applied consistently and fairly, in line with the COPE Core Practices.

5. Submission Requirements

Authors must select the appropriate manuscript type during submission and ensure that the manuscript follows the journal's current author guidelines and template. The title, abstract, keywords, main text, references, tables, figures, and declarations must be consistent with the selected category and the journal's technical requirements.

Authors must ensure that the manuscript is original, that all sources are cited appropriately, and that the contributions and competing interests of the authors are disclosed accurately. Any relevant ethical approval, consent, funding, data availability, or related declaration must be provided when applicable. The journal's transparency and integrity requirements are informed by the COPE Core Practices.