Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. Sentriva Publishers values the expertise of its reviewers and is committed to a fair, confidential, and rigorous peer-review process across all journals.
Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, declare any competing interests, and provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations.
All manuscripts submitted to Sentriva are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, share, or discuss any parts of an unpublished manuscript with outside parties.
If you realize a conflict of interest exists—such as having co-authored work with the submitters within the past 3 years, sharing institutional affiliations, or holding competitive financial positions—you must declare it immediately to the Editorial Board and recuse yourself from the peer-review process.
When analyzing a submission, please consider the following key aspects during your review:
Sentriva maintains a supportive and constructive peer review culture. Your feedback should identify areas for improvement while offering clear, actionable suggestions to help the authors improve their work.
Avoid overly broad or subjective feedback like "the paper is bad" or "the research is weak." Instead, point out specific sentences or data points (e.g., *"The analysis on page 4 requires further clarification regarding variable X..."*). Aggressive, dismissive, or offensive language will not be shared with authors.
At the conclusion of your review report, you will select one of the following standard recommendations:
| Recommendation Option | Description |
|---|---|
| Accept As Is | The paper is scientifically sound, requires no further revisions, and is ready for immediate production formatting. |
| Minor Revisions | The study is solid but requires minor clarifications, stylistic edits, or contextual expansions before formal acceptance. |
| Major Revisions | The core data shows promise, but the paper requires new experimental controls, rewritten methodologies, or substantial revision. Requires re-review. |
| Reject | The work has fundamental, unresolvable methodology flaws, exhibits severe plagiarism, or lacks the necessary scientific validity. |
Learn more about our publication ethics, editorial policies, and ethical responsibilities for authors, reviewers, and editors.
Ethics Policy