Peer Review Process

Cakrabuana: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan applies a double-blind peer review system to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic credibility of all published articles. Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a rigorous evaluation by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the submitted work.

The peer review process is intended to assess the manuscript's scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and suitability for publication. Through this process, the journal seeks to maintain high academic standards and ensure that published articles make meaningful contributions to the development of knowledge.

The review process at Cakrabuana: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan consists of the following nine stages:

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system, which is managed using the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript complies with the journal's submission requirements and author guidelines before submission.

All manuscripts must be submitted through the official journal submission system to ensure proper documentation and facilitate the editorial workflow.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is consistent with the journal's focus and scope. The editor also examines the manuscript's structure, organization, formatting, and compliance with the journal's author guidelines.

At this stage, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript's general academic quality, relevance, originality, and methodological soundness. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or contain substantial methodological deficiencies may be rejected without proceeding to external review.

In addition, submitted manuscripts are screened for potential plagiarism and text similarity using an appropriate similarity-checking tool before being forwarded to peer reviewers.

3. Evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief

Following the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript to determine its overall suitability for further consideration. This assessment focuses on the manuscript's originality, academic significance, relevance to the journal's scope, and potential contribution to the field of study.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's academic standards or publication criteria may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.

4. Selection and Invitation of Reviewers

The handling editor identifies and invites at least two qualified reviewers whose academic expertise and research interests are relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewer selection takes into account their academic qualifications, research experience, professional background, and potential conflicts of interest.

Cakrabuana: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan maintains the independence and impartiality of the review process through a double-blind peer review system. Under this arrangement, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. Manuscripts are therefore provided to reviewers without identifying information about the authors.

5. Review Invitation and Confirmation

Invited reviewers are expected to consider the invitation in relation to their areas of expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest before accepting or declining the assignment.

Reviewers who are unable to undertake the evaluation are encouraged to inform the editor promptly. Where appropriate, they may also recommend alternative experts with relevant academic qualifications to participate in the review process.

6. Peer Review and Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers examine the manuscript carefully to assess its academic quality and suitability for publication. The evaluation generally covers the originality of the research, clarity of the research objectives, relevance of the literature review, appropriateness of the research methodology, accuracy of data analysis, validity of the findings, and quality of the discussion and conclusions.

Reviewers are also expected to provide constructive comments and specific recommendations to help authors improve their manuscripts.

Upon completion of the evaluation, reviewers submit their reports to the editor with one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further revision.

• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements.

• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be reconsidered.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards.

7. Editorial Assessment of Review Reports

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the Editor-in-Chief and handling editor carefully examine the recommendations and comments before making an editorial decision.

The editor considers the reviewers' assessments collectively, taking into account the manuscript's academic quality, relevance, and compliance with the journal's publication standards.

If the reviewers provide substantially different or conflicting recommendations, the editor may invite an additional reviewer to obtain an independent assessment before reaching a final decision.

8. Notification of the Editorial Decision

The editor communicates the editorial decision to the corresponding author through the journal's official communication system or email. The decision notification includes the relevant reviewers' comments and recommendations to guide the authors in making the necessary revisions.

Reviewer identities remain confidential throughout this process. Authors are expected to carefully consider each comment and provide appropriate responses to the reviewers' suggestions.

Reviewers may also be informed of the editorial decision as part of the journal's commitment to maintaining a transparent and well-documented review process.

9. Revision, Final Evaluation, and Publication

When a manuscript is accepted subject to revision, the author must revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments and the editor's recommendations. The revised manuscript must be resubmitted within the deadline specified by the editorial team, together with a clear response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

For manuscripts requiring major revisions, the revised version may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation, provided they remain available and agree to continue participating in the review process. Manuscripts requiring only minor revisions may be assessed directly by the handling editor.

Once the editor is satisfied that all necessary revisions have been adequately addressed and the manuscript meets the journal's publication requirements, the manuscript will receive final acceptance.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the copyediting, proofreading, and production stages before publication. Published articles are made available online through the journal's website and can be accessed and downloaded free of charge in PDF format.