Peer Review Policy

Submitted manuscripts will be reviewed by the Editor to determine whether they meet the basic requirements of Cakrawala Candradimuka Literasi and the submission guidelines. Manuscripts that meet the journal's style and policies will be further processed for peer review.

Cakrawala Candradimuka Literasi implements a double-blind peer-review process involving multiple expert reviewers in the relevant fields of social sciences, education, citizenship, and humanities. The journal utilizes a standardized Review Form that allows each article to be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers based on their expertise, specialization, or historical experience in reviewing similar topics.

Reviewers provide their objective assessment regarding the manuscript's originality, clarity of presentation, methodological rigor, and contribution to the social sciences and education sectors. The final decision on manuscript acceptance is made entirely by the Editorial Board based on the reviewers' comments and suggestions.

Cakrawala Candradimuka Literasi applies four types of editorial decisions:

  • Accepted, as is – The manuscript is accepted without any changes because it comprehensively meets the journal's high standards of quality, including originality, research validity, clarity, and relevance.

  • Accepted with Minor Revisions – The manuscript is conditionally accepted, requiring minor corrections (e.g., grammar, formatting, or referencing). Authors are given a specific timeframe to complete these revisions before publication.

  • Accepted with Major Revisions – The manuscript is conditionally accepted but requires substantive revisions (e.g., methodology, data analysis, or argument structure). Authors must revise the paper according to the reviewers' guidelines within the specified timeframe.

  • Rejected – The manuscript is not accepted for publication due to reasons such as:

    • The topic falls outside the focus and scope of the journal.

    • There are significant technical or ethical problems with the methods or data presentation.

    • Lack of clarity, poor presentation structure, or inadequate language quality.

    • The manuscript does not meet the journal's rigorous academic and scientific standards.