Every article that goes to the Jurnal Cahaya Mandalika will be reviewed by at least 2 (two) reviewer in accordance with the theme of the article. Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers (double-blind/blind peer-review method). Reviewers are given four week to review the assigned article. The editorial team will give a decision to accept or reject the article based on the results of the review conducted by the reviewer. If the reviewers give recommendations that are significantly different, the editor will assign 1 (one) additional reviewer to be considered in giving a decision on the article. The language used in this journal is English or Indonesia.

The author is expected to pay attention to the following points before entering the article in the JPU:

1. Articles are not the result of the plagiarism of other people's articles. Jurnal Cahaya Mandalika will ensure that every published article will not exceed 20% similarity Score (Articles found with plagiarism more than 20% are automatically rejected and authors are advised, if the article has a simmilarity below or equal to 20%). Plagiarism screening will be conducted by Editorial Board using Turnitin®Plagiarism Checker.
2. The article entered is never published and is not in the process of being published in another journal.
3. The submitted articles are adjusted to the Jurnal Pengabdian UNDIKMA template.

Peer review is designed to assess the contribution, validity, relevance, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

From a publisher’s perspective, peer review functions as a filter for content, directing better quality articles to better quality journals and so creating journal brands.

Running articles through the process of peer review adds value to them. For this reason, publishers need to make sure that peer review is robust.

Reviewer can state the following four views for the submitted manuscript:

• Acceptance for publication
• Acceptance for publication after minor revision (it is decided after revisions are checked by the editorial board)
• Reviewing again after the major revision is done. After revision is made by the writers of the study, it is evaluated for the second tour.
• It is not published (rejection)

After reviewers’ evaluation is completed, views of the Reviewer are examined at least two weeks by editors and field editors.

Editors and field editors give final decision for the study by taking into consideration of views and suggestions of Reviewer. The final decision is sent to the author.

Editor Feedback

"Pointing out the specifics about flaws in the paper’s structure is paramount. Are methods valid, is data clearly presented, and are conclusions supported by data?” (Editor feedback)

“If an editor can read your comments and understand clearly the basis for your recommendation, then you have written a helpful review.” (Editor feedback)

Peer Review at Its Best

What peer review does best is to improve the quality of published papers by motivating authors to submit good quality work – and helping to improve that work through the peer-review process. 

In fact, 90% of researchers feel that peer review improves the quality of their published papers (University of Tennessee and CIBER Research Ltd, 2013).