SRPI Manuscript Review & Editorial Decision Form

SRPI Manuscript Review & Editorial Decision Form

This form supports all phases of the SRPI review process, including Initial Review, Editorial Review, Editor Decision, and Final Editor-in-Chief Approval. Reviewers and editors should complete only the sections corresponding to their assigned role.
- How This Form Works
  
  Thank you for serving as a reviewer for Sentinel Research & Policy Institute (SRPI).
  
  This is a single form used for all stages of the review process. After you select your Role in Review Process, the form will automatically display only the sections relevant to your assignment.
  
  Please complete only the sections that appear for your role. You will not see (and should not complete) sections that are not applicable.
  
  Rating Scale Guidance
  
  All rating questions use a 1–5 scale, defined as follows:
  
  1 – Serious deficiencies
  2 – Below acceptable standard
  3 – Acceptable but needs improvement
  4 – Strong
  5 – Excellent / publication-ready
  
  Use ratings to reflect your overall judgment, not isolated minor issues.
- Name*
  
  First NameLast Name
- Email*
  example@example.com
- Role in Review Process*
  Your role selection controls which sections appear.
- Manuscript Title*
- Publication*
- Manuscript Type*
- Manuscript Version Under Review*
- Initial Review evaluates writing quality and presentation only.
  
  You are assessing whether the manuscript is clearly written, well-structured, and technically suitable for publication.
  
  Do NOT evaluate originality, contribution to the field, or novelty.
- Grammar & Writing Style*
  
  1 – Serious grammar/style issues2 – Frequent issues3 – Acceptable with revisions4 – Strong5 – Excellent
- Clarity & Readability*
  
  1 – Very unclear2 – Often unclear3 – Generally clear4 – Clear and effective5 – Exceptionally clear
- Spelling & Formatting*
  
  1 – Major errors2 – Frequent errors3 – Minor issues4 – Very clean5 – No issues
- Academic Quality of Writing*
  
  1 – Not suitable2 – Weak3 – Adequate4 – Strong5 – Publication-ready
- Formatting or Citation Issues*
  
  NoneMinor issuesSignificant issues
- Areas Needing Improvement
  
  GrammarSentence structureOrganizationFormattingCitations / footnotesAcademic toneNone
- Suggestions for Improvement
- Final Recommendation – Initial Review*
  
  Proceed to Editorial ReviewMinor revisions requiredMajor revisions requiredNot suitable for publication
- Editorial Review evaluates intellectual substance, not grammar or formatting.
  
  Focus on originality, contribution, relevance, and accessibility.
  
  For Sentinel Publishing submissions, consider whether the work is appropriate for book-length publication and contributes meaningfully to the field.
- Originality of Submission*
  
  1 – Not original2 – Limited originality3 – Moderately original4 – Clearly original5 – Highly original
- Contribution to the Field*
  
  1 – Minimal contribution2 – Limited contribution3 – Moderate contribution4 – Strong contribution5 – Significant contribution
- Relevance to Current Scholarship or Policy*
  
  1 – Minimal relevance2 – Limited relevance3 – Moderate relevance4 – Strong relevance5 – Significant relevance
- Accessibility to a General Academic Audience*
  
  1 – Minimal accessibility2 – Limited accessibility3 – Moderate accessibility4 – Strong accessibility5 – Significant accessibility
- Credibility of Sources & Citations*
  
  Fully credibleMinor concernsSignificant concerns
- Areas Requiring Revision
  
  Argument clarityEngagement with literatureEvidence / sourcingStructureAccessibilityScopeNone
- Suggestions for Revisions
- Final Recommendation – Editorial Review*
  
  AcceptAccept with minor revisionsRevise and resubmitReject
- Overall Technical Quality (from Initial Review)*
  Provide a score of 1-5
- Overall Scholarly Merit (from Editorial Review)*
  Provide a score of 1-5
- Overall Assessment*
  
  Strong submissionSolid with revisionsMarginalNot suitable
- Handling Editor Recommendation*
  
  Recommend acceptanceRecommend minor revisionsRecommend major revisionsRecommend rejection
- Consolidated Notes to Author
  This summary is sent to the author.
- Final Decision*
  
  Accept for publicationAccept pending revisionsReject
- Approved For*
- Final Conditions or Notes
- Edited Article (If Applicable)
  
  If you put comments or tracked changes in the document, upload it here using the following file naming convention: ArticleName_EditingLevel_YYYYMMDD
  Cancelof
- Conflict of Interest*
  
  No conflictPotential conflict
- Certification*
  
  I certify that this review reflects my independent academic judgment and complies with SRPI editorial standards.
- Date*
  
  MonthDayYear
  Date
- Should be Empty:

SRPI Manuscript Review & Editorial Decision Form

How This Form Works

Rating Scale Guidance