Jurnal Ar Ro'is Mandalika (ARMADA) applies a peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and scientific contribution of submitted manuscripts. The review process is intended to ensure that published articles meet appropriate academic standards, follow publication ethics, and contribute meaningfully to their respective fields of study.
Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is assigned to one qualified reviewer whose expertise is relevant to the subject of the manuscript. The reviewer provides an independent academic assessment to assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision.
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:
Falls within the focus and scope of ARMADA.
Meets the journal's submission and formatting requirements.
Demonstrates an appropriate level of originality and academic relevance.
Provides clear research objectives and an appropriate methodological approach.
Complies with the journal's publication ethics requirements.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external review.
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to one reviewer with relevant academic expertise in the subject area of the submission.
The reviewer is expected to provide an objective, independent, and constructive evaluation. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline the assignment if they cannot provide an impartial assessment.
The editorial team is responsible for selecting an appropriate reviewer and ensuring that the review is relevant to the manuscript's subject and research methodology.
The reviewer evaluates the manuscript based on the following criteria:
Originality and novelty: the extent to which the manuscript presents original findings or meaningful contributions to existing knowledge.
Relevance and scope: the suitability of the manuscript for ARMADA and its intended readership.
Research methodology: the appropriateness, clarity, and rigor of the research design, data collection, and analytical methods.
Results and discussion: the accuracy of the analysis, the interpretation of findings, and the relationship between the results and the research objectives.
References and literature review: the relevance, adequacy, and appropriate use of scholarly sources.
Academic presentation: the clarity of writing, organization, tables, figures, and overall presentation.
Ethical compliance: the appropriate treatment of research participants, data, citations, and other ethical considerations relevant to the study.
The reviewer provides written comments identifying the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring improvement. Recommendations should be supported by clear academic reasoning.
Based on the reviewer's report, the manuscript, and the journal's editorial policies, the editor makes the final editorial decision. Possible decisions include:
Accept: the manuscript meets the journal's requirements and is suitable for publication.
Minor Revision: the manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications.
Major Revision: substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's academic standards, is unsuitable for its scope, or has fundamental weaknesses that cannot be adequately addressed through revision.
The reviewer's recommendation serves as an important basis for the decision but does not automatically determine the outcome. The editor retains responsibility for the final decision.
When revisions are requested, authors must address the reviewer's comments and submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the editorial team.
Authors are encouraged to provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If a comment is not adopted, the authors should provide an appropriate academic justification.
The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor and, when necessary, returned to the same reviewer for further assessment. The need for additional review depends on the extent of the revisions and the editor's judgment.
A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the editor determines that it meets the journal's academic, technical, and ethical requirements.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and final publication checks. The editorial team verifies the accuracy of the manuscript's metadata, author information, references, and other publication details before the article is published.
Final acceptance does not remove the authors' responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of their work.
Manuscripts received by ARMADA are treated as confidential documents during the editorial and review process. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished manuscript content or use information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of their assessment. Editors are responsible for managing such conflicts and arranging an alternative reviewer when necessary.
ARMADA expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold principles of academic integrity, objectivity, confidentiality, and responsible scholarly communication.
Concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, authorship disputes, or other forms of publication misconduct will be handled in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.
The editorial team reserves the right to reject manuscripts or take appropriate corrective action when ethical violations are identified.
The peer review process is designed to support fair and informed editorial decisions. Although the journal uses one reviewer for each manuscript at the peer review stage, the editor remains responsible for evaluating the review report, considering the manuscript's overall quality, and making the final decision.
The journal is committed to continuously improving the consistency, transparency, and effectiveness of its editorial and peer review practices.
IN COOPERATION WITH:
TEMPLATE
This work is licensed under
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Important tools:
:strip_icc():format(webp)/kly-media-production/medias/4550198/original/016488700_1692862388-cover.jpg)
