Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

Jurnal Penelitian Cakrawala Leuser applies a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scientific contribution of every manuscript submitted for publication.

Each manuscript undergoes the following review stages:

1. Initial Manuscript Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first examined by the editorial team to determine whether they comply with the journal's focus and scope, author guidelines, manuscript structure, formatting requirements, and basic academic standards.

The editorial team may reject manuscripts at this stage if they are outside the journal's scope, fail to meet the basic submission requirements, contain significant ethical concerns, or do not meet the minimum academic standards of the journal.

2. Similarity and Plagiarism Check

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening may be checked using plagiarism or similarity-detection software. The editorial team evaluates the similarity results and may request clarification or revision from the authors when necessary.

A high similarity level does not automatically constitute plagiarism; the editorial team considers the context and sources of the similarity before making a decision.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

The journal applies a double-blind review system, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, publication record, and relevance to the manuscript's topic.

4. Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on several aspects, including:

  • originality and novelty of the research;

  • relevance to the journal's focus and scope;

  • clarity of research objectives and research questions;

  • adequacy and appropriateness of the methodology;

  • accuracy and quality of data analysis;

  • logical consistency of the results and discussion;

  • relevance and adequacy of references;

  • contribution to the development of knowledge;

  • clarity and quality of academic writing; and

  • ethical considerations where applicable.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and recommendations to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

5. Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the editor's assessment, the manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept — the manuscript is accepted for publication without substantial revision.

  • Minor Revision — the manuscript requires limited revisions before it can be accepted.

  • Major Revision — substantial revisions are required and the manuscript may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation.

  • Reject — the manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements.

The final publication decision is made by the editor. A reviewer's recommendation is an important consideration but does not by itself determine the final editorial decision.

6. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must revise their manuscripts according to the reviewers' and editors' comments. Authors should provide a clear response to each substantive comment and indicate how the manuscript has been revised.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, particularly when major revisions have been requested.

7. Final Decision and Publication

After the manuscript has successfully completed the review and revision process, the editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance for publication.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the editorial production process, including language and formatting checks, proofreading, layout, metadata verification, and publication scheduling.

8. Review Duration

The review process is conducted as efficiently as possible while maintaining academic quality. The duration of the review process may vary depending on the availability of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, the required revisions, and the authors' response time.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a specific period.

9. Reviewer Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in submitted manuscripts for purposes unrelated to the review process.

The editorial team is responsible for maintaining the integrity and independence of the peer review process and for making publication decisions based on academic quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, and ethical standards.