Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy

Cakrawala: Management Science Journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality and integrity in our publishing process. The peer review system plays a critical role in ensuring the academic accuracy, originality, and scientific value of all articles published in the journal.

Review Model

The journal utilizes a single-blind peer review process. In this model, the identities of the reviewers are kept strictly anonymous to the authors throughout the review process, ensuring impartial and objective evaluation of the manuscripts.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are carefully selected by the editorial board based on their specific expertise, academic qualifications, and publishing experience. We engage a diverse range of national and international academics to produce comprehensive evaluations.

Evaluation Criteria

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated based on the following key metrics:

  • Originality: The manuscript must present new, original research.
  • Relevance: The research topic must closely align with the scope and objectives of the journal.
  • Methodological Soundness: The research methodology must be robust, transparent, and consistent with the research questions posed.
  • Clarity and Quality: The manuscript must be well-organized, logically structured, and free of grammatical errors.
  • Scientific Contribution: The study must make a significant contribution to existing knowledge or offer valuable new insights to the field of management.

The Review Process Workflow

  1. Submission Screening (max. 2 weeks): All manuscripts are first screened by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal's formatting guidelines, scope, and ethical standards (including plagiarism checks).
  2. Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least one (typically two) independent expert reviewers for thorough evaluation.
  3. Review Duration (max. 4 weeks): Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluation within four weeks from the date of acceptance. Extensions may be granted under special circumstances.
  4. Review Results: Reviewers provide a comprehensive assessment and recommend one of the following:
    (a) Accept without revision | (b) Accept with minor revisions | (c) Major revisions required | (d) Reject.
  5. Decision Making: The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers' recommendations and editorial assessment. Decisions will generally be published/communicated within four weeks.

Post-Review & Ethics

Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

All manuscripts under review are treated as strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss manuscripts with anyone outside the editorial team. If a reviewer identifies a potential conflict of interest, they must immediately notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Post-Review Communication & Revisions

Authors will be officially notified of the editorial decision along with detailed, constructive comments from the reviewers. If revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a "Response to Reviewers" document explaining how each comment was addressed.

Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection decision must contact the editorial office with detailed, scientifically sound reasons. Appeals will be evaluated objectively by the editorial board, whose subsequent decision will be final.