Journal of Cahaya Mandalika is a double blind peer review journal. Every article submitted to Journal of Cahaya Mandalika for publication is subject to peer review. A peer review in this journal is an evaluation of a paper submitted by two or more individuals who have similar competence to the author. It aims to determine the feasibility of scientific papers to be published. The peer-review method is used to maintain quality standards and give credibility to the paper. Peer review in Journal of Cahaya Mandalika is carried out in 9 steps with the following description.
Corresponding authors or submitting papers to journals. This is done through an online system supported by the Open Journal System (OJS). However, to make it easier for the authors, Journal of Cahaya Mandalika also temporarily accepts paper submissions via email.
Editorial Office Rating
The first submitted paper is assessed by Journal of Cahaya Mandalika. The editor checks whether it fits the focus and scope of the Journal. The composition and arrangement of the paper are evaluated against the journal's Author Guidelines to ensure it includes the necessary sections and style of language. In addition, an assessment of the minimum quality of papers required for publication begins at this step, including an assessment of whether there are major methodological weaknesses. Any submitted papers that pass this step will be checked by Turnitin for plagiarism before being reviewed by reviewers.
Rating by Editor in Chief
The Editor in Chief checks whether the paper is suitable for the journal, is original, interesting, and significant enough for publication. Otherwise, the paper may be rejected without further review.
Invitation to Reviewers
The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes will be appropriate reviewers (also known as referees) based on expertise, the proximity of research interests, and no consideration of conflicts of interest. The peer-review process at Journal of Cahaya Mandalika involves a community of experts in a narrow field of Humanities and Social Sciences, Contemporary Political Science, Educational Sciences, Religion and Philosophy, Economics, Engineering Sciences, Health Sciences, Medical Sciences, design and media arts, plant and animal sciences, natural sciences and narrowly defined multidisciplinary fields that qualify and are able to exercise impartiality fairly. Impartiality is also maintained by the double-blind peer review used in this journal. That is, the reviewer does not know the identity of the author, otherwise, the author does not know the identity of the reviewer. Papers are sent to reviewers anonymously.
Response to Invitation
Potential reviewers consider the invitation to be against their own expertise, conflict of interest, and availability. They then decide to accept or reject. In the invitation letter, the editor may ask the potential reviewer for suggestions from an alternative reviewer, when he or she refuses to review.
Reviewers allocate time to read the paper several times. The first reading is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are discovered at this stage, reviewers may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper a few more times, taking notes to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept, or reject it, or with a request for revision (usually marked as major or minor) before reconsideration.
Journal Evaluating Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief and the managing editor consider all returned reviews before making an overall decision. If reviews differ greatly between the two reviewers, the handling editor may invite additional reviewers for additional opinions before making a decision.
The editor emails the decision to the author including relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer comments are sent anonymously to the corresponding author to take necessary action and respond. At this point, reviewers are also sent an email or letter notifying them of the results of their review.
The last step
If accepted, the paper is sent to copy-editing. If the article is rejected or sent back to the author for major or minor revisions, the editor in charge will include constructive comments from the reviewer to help the author improve the article. Authors should make corrections and revise the paper in accordance with reviewers' comments and instructions.
After the revision is made, the author must send the revised paper back to the editor
If a paper is sent back for revision, reviewers should expect to receive the revised version, unless they have chosen not to participate further. However, if only minor changes are requested, this follow-up review can be performed by the handling editor.
If the editor is happy with the revised paper, it is considered accepted. Accepted papers will be published online and are all available free of charge as downloadable pdf files.