Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to Jurnal Cendekia Mengabdi (JCM) undergo an editorial screening and peer review process to ensure the quality, relevance, originality, academic integrity, and contribution of the manuscript to community service and community empowerment.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editorial team to determine its suitability for further review.

The initial screening may consider:

  • Relevance to the focus and scope of JCM;
  • Compliance with the journal's submission guidelines and manuscript requirements;
  • Originality and similarity of the manuscript;
  • Clarity and overall quality of the manuscript;
  • Relevance and significance of the community service activities;
  • Appropriateness of the methods, implementation, and scholarly presentation;
  • Evidence of community participation, outcomes, or impact where applicable; and
  • Compliance with publication ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without proceeding to external peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening will be assigned to reviewers with relevant academic or professional expertise related to the subject of the manuscript.

Reviewer selection is managed by the editorial team by considering the reviewers' expertise, the subject area of the manuscript, independence, and potential conflicts of interest.

3. Peer Review

JCM applies a peer review process in which reviewers independently evaluate submitted manuscripts and provide comments and recommendations to the editor.

The peer review process is intended to assist editors in making appropriate editorial decisions and to help authors improve the academic quality, clarity, relevance, and presentation of their manuscripts.

Reviewers may evaluate aspects including:

  • Originality and contribution of the community service activity;
  • Relevance to the focus and scope of JCM;
  • Clarity of the background, problems, and objectives;
  • Appropriateness of the community service methods and approaches;
  • Clarity of the implementation process;
  • Level of community participation or stakeholder involvement;
  • Quality of the results and discussion;
  • Evidence of benefits, outcomes, or impact on the target community;
  • Sustainability or potential continuation of the program where applicable;
  • Application of science, technology, innovation, or professional expertise;
  • Relevance and adequacy of references;
  • Clarity of conclusions; and
  • Overall quality and organization of the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Recommendation

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the editor. Reviewer recommendations serve as an important consideration in the editorial decision but do not independently determine the final publication decision.

Recommendations may include:

  • Accept Submission;
  • Revisions Required;
  • Resubmit for Review; or
  • Decline Submission.

5. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to revise their manuscripts according to the comments and recommendations provided by reviewers and editors.

Authors should provide an appropriate response to the review comments and clearly indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

Depending on the extent of the revisions and the editorial assessment, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assigned to other reviewers for further evaluation.

6. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the editor after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses and revisions, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with editorial and publication requirements.

The editor determines whether the manuscript is accepted for publication, requires further revision, should undergo additional review, or is declined.

7. Copyediting and Production

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to the editorial production process, which may include:

  • Copyediting;
  • Reference and formatting checks;
  • Layout preparation;
  • Metadata preparation;
  • Proofreading; and
  • Final publication.

Authors may be requested to review and approve the final proof of their article before publication.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and information obtained during the submission and peer review process are treated as confidential.

Editors and reviewers should not disclose manuscript content, review information, unpublished data, or other confidential information obtained through the editorial process to unauthorized parties. Such information must not be used for personal or professional advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest that could reasonably affect the independence or objectivity of the review or editorial decision.