Scientific Significance for international Publication, Ethics &...

| 0 Klinik Manuskrip Riset Dasar RistekDikti: Pekanbaru 25-26 Oktober 2017

Scientific Significance for international

Publication, Ethics & Publication in Digital Era

Tole Sutikno Kepala Lembaga Penerbitan dan Publikasi Ilmiah (LPPI), Universitas Ahmad Dahlan

Editor-in-Chief, TELKOMNIKA Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control , ISSN: 1693-6930 (terakreditasi “A” Dikti, terindeks Scopus Q3)

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems, ISSN: 2088-8694 (terindeks Scopus Q3)

Managing Editor, International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering , ISSN: 2088-8708 (terindeks Scopus Q2)

Email: [email protected], [email protected], WA: 085 628 628 10

http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/telkomnika

http://www.iaesjournal.com/online/index.php/IJPEDS

http://www.iaesjournal.com/online/index.php/IJECE


Some words of wisdom (bijak)

• Innovative application of older technologies is often “good

enough”

• You get a publication if you are the first to write about

something

Hermann Maurer


Tiga (3) aturan dasar yang perlu dipahami Penulis

1. Kenali audien

2. Pikirkan tentang apa yang menarik bagi

3. Ketika kita menulis, ALWAYS keep our audience & its

interests dalam pikiran kita

The most important of good writing practices:

“Write with the reader in mind” = melayani pembaca

NOT in our mind


Content:

1. Introduction

2. Skeleton (kerangka) of an Article

3. Steps to organizing your manuscript

4. Simple steps in writing & example

5. Most common reasons for journal rejection


Ethics in publishing: Policies and ethics #1 (in Elsevier)

Policies for authors

For details on Elsevier’s polices, visit our policy pages.

• Copyright: rights related to the publication and distribution of research

• Article Sharing: details on self-archiving and posting

• Article Withdrawal: article removal or retractions

• Patient Consent: use of personal information of patients or other

individuals

• Open access licenses: details on the licenses available when

publishing open access

• Permissions: obtaining permission for using Elsevier published

material

• Research data: policy and principles on research data

• Text and data mining: Elsevier’s policy on data and text mining

https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies


Ethics in publishing: Policies and ethics #2 (in Elsevier)

Ethics topics to consider when publishing:

• Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

• Originality and plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

• Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data.

• Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Elsevier does not view the following uses of a work as prior publication: publication in the form of an abstract; publication as an academic thesis; publication as an electronic preprint. Information on prior publication is included within each Elsevier journal’s Guide for Authors. Note: Cell Press, The Lancet, and some society-owned titles have different policies on prior publication. Information on these is available on the journal homepage.

• Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment.

• Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All submissions must include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest.

• Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

• Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

• Hazards and human or animal subjects: Statements of compliance are required if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, or if it involves the use of animal or human subjects.

• Use of patient images or case details: Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper.

http://www.cell.com/cell/authors

http://www.thelancet.com/lancet/information-for-authors/disclosure-of-results


Perilaku tidak etis (Unethical behavior) "bisa

mendapat penolakan dan bahkan larangan

menerbitkannya di jurnal"

• Multiple submissions

• Redundant publications

• Plagiarism

• Data fabrication and falsification

• Improper use of human subjects and animals in research

• Improper author contribution


1. Introduction


As an International journal?

• The content is from a wide range of international authors,

• Have an Editorial Board that has international expertise and where

appropriate that are well represented geographically.


The Editor asks:

1. What did I learn from reading this paper?

2. ƒIs it worth knowing (layak diketahui)?

3. ƒWill this paper have an impact on the field?

- ISI journal citations (JCR), Scopus …

- Citations in professional literature (e.g. benchmarking technical reports,

textbooks)

- Professional application (e.g. engineering design, software, patents)

Journal publishers do not want zero-cited articles


Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2017 Release (JCR 2016 data)

• Date of news item: 15 June 2017

• Please be advised of the release of the latest issue of Journal Citation

Reports which provides 2016 data and is now available to subscribed

institutions.

• Information can be found in the Clarivate Analytics News item at:

http://news.clarivate.com/2017-06-14-Worlds-most-influential-journals-for-

2017-unveiled-in-the-Journal-Citation-Reports-from-Clarivate-Analytics

• Journal Citation Reports - See how to identify top performing journals and

link to view all of the journals included in the 2017 update at:

http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/imgblast/JCRFullCovlist-2016.pdf

• If you have any questions or require assistance please contact Jisc Web of

Science Service for UK Education Support at: [email protected]

http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/news/2017/20170615.html




http://news.clarivate.com/2017-06-14-Worlds-most-influential-journals-for-2017-unveiled-in-the-Journal-Citation-Reports-from-Clarivate-Analytics



































http://clarivate.com/scientific-and-academic-research/research-evalution/journal-citation-reports/



mailto:[email protected]

Clarivate Analytics Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2017 Release (JCR 2016 data)

http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/whatsNewGroup/whatsNewJCR.html

What's New in Journal Citation Reports?

2017 JCR RELEASE

This release of Journal Citation Reports provides 2016 data. The 2017 data will be made

available in the 2018 Journal Citation Reports release.

Journals appearing in JCR

A complete list of the titles covered in this year's JCR is available here.

A list of journals receiving their first Impact Factor is available here.

This release of the JCR also includes the following new features:

Improved filters in the Journal and Categories by rank pages, and Compare Journals

page: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/JCRGroup/howDoI/viewAndRank.html

% of citable items on each Journal Profile page: http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/JCRGroup/jcrJournalProfile/jcrJournalInformation.html








http://app.info.science.thomsonreuters.biz/e/er?s=1556&lid=31171&elq=here</a>: A list of journals receiving their first Impact Factor is available at:%C2%A0<a href=

http://app.info.science.thomsonreuters.biz/e/er?s=1556&lid=31172&elq=here</a>: A list of journals receiving their first Impact Factor is available at:%C2%A0<a href=

http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/JCRGroup/howDoI/viewAndRank.html



http://ipscience-help.thomsonreuters.com/incitesLiveJCR/JCRGroup/jcrJournalProfile/jcrJournalInformation.html


Journal Citation Report (JCR)


Is a title indexed in Scopus? A reminder to check

before you publish

Here’s how to verify if a title is indexed in Scopus:

• Check our title lists. You don’t need access to Scopus to find out what is

and what is NOT covered, the information is publicly available from our info

page.There are 3 lists to check against:

- Scopus Source List: The complete list of indexed journal titles

- Book Title List: The complete list of indexed book titles

- Scopus Discontinued Sources List: The list of journal titles for which

indexing has been discontinued (and as of which volume and issue)

• Find it in Scopus. You can also go to Scopus.com itself to check. Open the

“Sources” page and search for a title, publisher or ISSN.

• Ask! When in doubt, contact the Scopus Helpdesk and one of our Customer

Service representatives can let you know if a title is indexed (or is going to

be indexed).

https://blog.scopus.com/posts/is-a-title-indexed-in-scopus-a-reminder-to-check-before-you-publish

https://blog.scopus.com/posts/is-a-title-indexed-in-scopus-a-reminder-to-check-before-you-publish

https://goo.gl/ziuR3W

https://goo.gl/Co27ac

https://goo.gl/ez7bOS

https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/excel_doc/0019/212275/Discontinued-sources-from-Scopus_Nov11_2016.xlsx

https://goo.gl/LkfXre

https://goo.gl/LkfXre

https://goo.gl/UWCtst




Scopus: CiteScore


Comparison: CiteScore vs Impact Factor


Metrics make journal assessment more complete & transparent


2. Skeleton (Kerangka) of an Article


Types of paper Article type Description Word

count*

Abstract References

Figures and

Tables

Miscellaneous Maximum number of

authors

Book Review 500-700 None 1-3 None Solicited “diminta” & Unsolicited

1

Original Article

3,000 Structured

300 words

50 6 Unsolicited 10

Review Articles

Basic Science / Clinical

4,000 300 words 100 6 Solicited & Unsolicited

5

Brief Reports 1,500 150 words 20 2-3 Unsolicited 3 & group name

Letters Within 8 weeks of

publication, original

author to respond

500 None 3-5 None Unsolicited 3

Bridging the Gap

1,500 None 10 1-2 Solicited 3

Meeting Reports

4,000 300 words 100 6 Solicited 3 & group name

Commentary 1,500 None 10-12 1-2 Solicited 3

Visual Vaccinology

200 None 1-2 None Regular Feature 2

http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/misc/Vaccine_Article_Type_Guidelines_May%202012.doc


Green Energy & Environment

Types of paper

Contributions falling into the following categories will be considered for publication:

- Review (>10000 words),

- Mini review (~5000 words),

- Feature article >8000 words),

- Research article,

- Communication (~3000 words),

- Highlight (~1000 words), and

- Perspective (~3000 words).

Please ensure that you select the appropriate article type from the list of options when making your submission. Authors contributing to special issues should ensure that they select the special issue article type from this list.

Ref: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/green-energy-and-environment/guide-for-authors/

http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/article-types

http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/green-energy-and-environment/guide-for-authors/















The Nature journals

The Nature journals publish several different types of articles about science and medicine. Broadly speaking, these can be divided into articles reporting original scientific research; those reviewing scientific research; scientific journalism (news); opinion about science-related matters; articles about science history; and articles about the interface of science and culture.

• Original research is published either as an Article, Letter, Resource (presents a large dataset of broad usefulness, interest and significance) Brief Communication or Technical Report.

• Articles in the Nature journals that review recent advances in the scientific literature are called Reviews. The Nature Reviews journals also publish Progress articles (highly topical, short reviews). Nature publishes Insights (themed collections of several review articles) and, occasionally, Analysis (meta-analysis of existing data). Some of the Nature journals publish Perspectives and Historical Perspectives. Perspectives discuss models and ideas from a personal but balanced viewpoint. They are intended to stimulate discussion and new experimental approaches. All these articles (Reviews, Progress, Analysis, Insights, Perspectives and Historical Perspectives) are peer-reviewed. See each journal's guide to authors for further information.

• The Nature journals also publish News and Views: short, accessible articles focused on one scientific advance independent of the author's own research.


• Structured

- IMRaD formula (will discuss more on next slide)

• Unstructured

- Paragraphs- few sentences summarizing each section

A perspective, opinion, or commentary is based on ideas, opinions, and insights, and hence does not follow a strict structure like the IMRaD.

Selama ide mengalir secara logis, penulis bebas menyusun artikel sesuai keinginannya.

Skeleton (kerangka) of an Article


IMRaD formula

• Title

• Authorship

• Abstract & Keywords

• Main text (IMRAD)

• Introduction

• Method

• Results

• And

• Discussion

• Conclusions

• Acknowledgements

• References

Artikel Tell a story – clarity (jelas, gamblang…) and conciseness

(keringkasan yg padat isinya)

Make them easy for indexing and searching

(informative, attractive & effective)

Journal SPACE is not unlimited

Kondisikan agar Authors menyajikan

artikel mereka as concise as possible


3. Steps to Organizing your

manuscript


1. Prepare the figures and tables

2. Write the Methods

3. Write up the Results

4. Write the Discussion Finalize the Results and Discussion before writing the introduction. This is because, if the discussion is insufficient, how can you objectively demonstrate the scientific significance of your work in the introduction?

5. Write a clear Conclusion

6. Write a compelling introduction

7. Write the Abstract

8. Compose a concise and descriptive Title

9. Select Keywords for indexing

10. Write the Acknowledgements

11. Write up the References

Steps to organizing your manuscript

Ref: Dr. Angel Borja (AZTI-Tecnalia, Spain)

Length of the manuscript

Look at the journal's Guide for Authors, but an ideal length for a

manuscript is 25 to 40 pages, double spaced, including essential data

only. Here are some general guidelines:

• Title: Short and informative

• Abstract: 1 paragraph (<250 words)

• Introduction: 1.5-2 pages

• Methods: 2-3 pages

• Results: 6-8 pages

• Discussion: 4-6 pages

• Conclusion: 1 paragraph

• Figures: 6-8 (one per page)

• Tables: 1-3 (one per page)

• References: 20-50 papers (2-4 pages)


Prepare the figures and tables

Remember that "a figure is worth a thousand words." Hence,

illustrations, including figures and tables, are the most efficient way

to present your results. Your data are the driving force of the paper,

so your illustrations are critical!

How do you decide between presenting your data as tables or figures?

Generally, tables give the actual experimental results, while figures

are often used for comparisons of experimental results with those of

previous works, or with calculated/theoretical values (Figure 1).


Prepare the figures and tables (2)

Figure 1. An example of

the same data presented

as table or as figure.

Depending in your

objectives, you can show

your data either as table (if

you wish to stress

numbers) or as figure (if

you wish to compare

gradients).


Another important factor: figure and table legends

must be self-explanatory (Figure 2)

Figure 2. In a figure or table, all the information must be there to understand the contents, including the spelling out of each abbreviation, the locations mentioned in the text and coordinates.


When presenting your tables and figures, appearances count! To this end:

Avoid crowded plots (Figure 3), using only three or four data sets per figure; use well-

selected scales.

Think about appropriate axis label size

Include clear symbols and data sets that are easy to distinguish.

Never include long boring tables (e.g., chemical compositions of emulsion systems or lists

of species and abundances). You can include them as supplementary material.

Figure 3. This is an example of how to best present your data. In the first figure (left), data are crowded

with too many plots. In the second figure (right), data are separated into two datasets, and plots show

gradients, which can be useful for discussion.


We must pay attention to the use of decimals, lines, etc.

Figure 4. Inadequate use of lines, number of decimals, decimal separators (use

always dots, not commas) and position of units (above) and its adequate use

(below) for a more clear table.


Write the Methods

• This section responds to the question of how the problem was studied. If your paper is proposing a new method, you need to include detailed information so a knowledgeable reader can reproduce the experiment.

• However, do not repeat the details of established methods; use References and Supporting Materials to indicate the previously published procedures. Broad summaries or key references are sufficient.

• Reviewers will criticize incomplete or incorrect methods descriptions and may recommend rejection, because this section is critical in the process of reproducing your investigation. In this way, all chemicals must be identified. Do not use proprietary, unidentifiable compounds. To this end, it's important to use standard systems for numbers and nomenclature.

• Present proper control experiments and statistics used, again to make the experiment of investigation repeatable.


Write the Methods (2)

List the methods in the same order they will appear in the Results section, in the logical order in which you did the research:

• Description of the site

• Description of the surveys or experiments done, giving information on dates, etc.

• Description of the laboratory methods, including separation or treatment of samples, analytical methods, following the order of waters, sediments and biomonitors. If you have worked with different biodiversity components start from the simplest (i.e. microbes) to the more complex (i.e. mammals)

• Description of the statistical methods used (including confidence levels, etc.)

In this section, avoid adding comments, results, and discussion, which is a common error.


Write up the Results

• This section responds to the question "What have you found?"

Hence, only representative results from your research should be

presented. The results should be essential for discussion.

• Use sub-headings to keep results of the same type together, which

is easier to review and read. Number these sub-sections for the

convenience of internal cross-referencing, but always taking into

account the publisher's Guide for Authors.

• For the data, decide on a logical order that tells a clear story and

makes it and easy to understand. Generally, this will be in the same

order as presented in the methods section.

• An important issue is that you must not include references in this

section; you are presenting your results, so you cannot refer to

others here. If you refer to others, is because you are discussing

your results, and this must be included in the Discussion section.

Write the Discussion

Here you must respond to what the results mean. Probably it is the easiest section to write, but the hardest section to get right. This is because it is the most important section of your article. Here you get the chance to sell your data. Take into account that a huge numbers of manuscripts are rejected because the Discussion is weak.

You need to make the Discussion corresponding to the Results, but do not reiterate the results. Here you need to compare the published results by your colleagues with yours (using some of the references included in the Introduction). Never ignore work in disagreement with yours, in turn, you must confront it and convince the reader that you are correct or better.

Take into account the following tips:

1. Avoid statements that go beyond what the results can support.

2. Avoid unspecific expressions such as "higher temperature", "at a lower rate", "highly significant". Quantitative descriptions are always preferred (35ºC, 0.5%, p<0.001, respectively).

3. Avoid sudden introduction of new terms or ideas; you must present everything in the introduction, to be confronted with your results here.


Write the Discussion (2)

4. Speculations on possible interpretations are allowed, but these should be rooted in fact, rather than imagination. To achieve good interpretations think about:

- How do these results relate to the original question or objectives outlined in the Introduction section?

- Do the data support your hypothesis?

- Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported?

- Discuss weaknesses and discrepancies. If your results were unexpected, try to explain why

- Is there another way to interpret your results?

- What further research would be necessary to answer the questions raised by your results?

- Explain what is new without exaggerating

5. Revision of Results and Discussion is not just paper work. You may do further experiments, derivations, or simulations. Sometimes you cannot clarify your idea in words because some critical items have not been studied substantially.


Write a clear Conclusion

• This section shows how the work advances the field from the

present state of knowledge. In some journals, it's a separate section;

in others, it's the last paragraph of the Discussion section. Whatever

the case, without a clear conclusion section, reviewers and readers

will find it difficult to judge your work and whether it merits

publication in the journal.

• A common error in this section is repeating the abstract, or just

listing experimental results. Trivial statements of your results are

unacceptable in this section.

• You should provide a clear scientific justification for your work in this

section, and indicate uses and extensions if appropriate. Moreover,

you can suggest future experiments and point out those that are

underway.

• You can propose present global and specific conclusions, in relation

to the objectives included in the introduction.


Write a compelling introduction

This is your opportunity to convince readers that you clearly know why your work is useful. Introduction provides background information and usually includes a brief review of the literature

A good introduction should answer the following questions:

- What is the problem to be solved?

- Are there any existing solutions?

- Which is the best?

- What is its main limitation?

- What do you hope to achieve?

Editors like to see that you have provided a perspective consistent with the nature of the journal. You need to introduce the main scientific publications on which your work is based, citing a couple of original and important works, including recent review articles.

However, editors hate improper citations of too many references irrelevant to the work, or inappropriate judgments on your own achievements. They will think you have no sense of purpose.


Write a compelling introduction (2)

Here are some additional tips for the introduction:

• Never use more words than necessary (be concise and to-the-point). Don't make this section into a history lesson. Long introductions put readers off.

• We all know that you are keen to present your new data. But do not forget that you need to give the whole picture at first.

• The introduction must be organized from the global to the particular point of view, guiding the readers to your objectives when writing this paper.

• State the purpose of the paper and research strategy adopted to answer the question, but do not mix introduction with results, discussion and conclusion. Always keep them separate to ensure that the manuscript flows logically from one section to the next.

• Hypothesis and objectives must be clearly remarked at the end of the introduction.

• Expressions such as "novel," "first time," "first ever," and "paradigm-changing" are not preferred. Use them sparingly.


Write the Abstract

• The abstract tells prospective readers what you did and what the important findings in your research were. Together with the title, it's the advertisement of your article. Make it interesting and easily understood without reading the whole article. Avoid using jargon, uncommon abbreviations and references.

• You must be accurate, using the words that convey the precise meaning of your research. The abstract provides a short description of the perspective and purpose of your paper. It gives key results but minimizes experimental details. It is very important to remind that the abstract offers a short description of the interpretation/conclusion in the last sentence.

• A clear abstract will strongly influence whether or not your work is further considered.

• However, the abstracts must be keep as brief as possible. Just check the 'Guide for authors' of the journal, but normally they have less than 250 words.


Write the Abstract (2)

In an abstract, the two whats are essential.

• What has been done?

• What are the main findings?


Compose a concise and descriptive Title

• The title must explain what the paper is broadly about. It is your first (and probably only) opportunity to attract the reader's attention. In this way, remember that the first readers are the Editor and the referees. Also, readers are the potential authors who will cite your article, so the first impression is powerful!

• We are all flooded by publications, and readers don't have time to read all scientific production. They must be selective, and this selection often comes from the title.

• Reviewers will check whether the title is specific and whether it reflects the content of the manuscript. Editors hate titles that make no sense or fail to represent the subject matter adequately. Hence, keep the title informative and concise (clear, descriptive, and not too long). You must avoid technical jargon and abbreviations, if possible. This is because you need to attract a readership as large as possible. Dedicate some time to think about the title and discuss it with your co-authors.


Compose a concise and descriptive Title (2)

Here you can see some examples of original titles, and how they were changed after reviews and comments to them:

Example 1

• Original title: Preliminary observations on the effect of salinity on benthic community distribution within a estuarine system, in the North Sea

• Revised title: Effect of salinity on benthic distribution within the Scheldt estuary (North Sea)

• Comments: Long title distracts readers. Remove all redundancies such as "studies on," "the nature of," etc. Never use expressions such as "preliminary." Be precise.

Example 2

• Original title: Action of antibiotics on bacteria

• Revised title: Inhibition of growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by streptomycin

• Comments: Titles should be specific. Think about "how will I search for this piece of information" when you design the title.


Select Keywords for indexing

• Keywords are used for indexing your paper. They are the label of

your manuscript. It is true that now they are less used by journals

because you can search the whole text. However, when looking for

keywords, avoid words with a broad meaning and words already

included in the title.

• Some journals require that the keywords are not those from the

journal name, because it is implicit that the topic is that. For

example, the journal Soil Biology & Biochemistry requires that the

word "soil" not be selected as a keyword.

• Only abbreviations firmly established in the field are eligible (e.g.,

TOC, CTD), avoiding those which are not broadly used (e.g., EBA,

MMI).

• Again, check the Guide for Authors and look at the number of

keywords admitted, label, definitions, thesaurus, range, and other

special requests.


Write the Acknowledgements

• Here, you can thank people who have contributed to the manuscript

but not to the extent where that would justify authorship. For

example, here you can include technical help and assistance with

writing and proofreading. Probably, the most important thing is to

thank your funding agency or the agency giving you a grant or

fellowship.

• In the case of European projects, do not forget to include the grant

number or reference. Also, some institutes include the number of

publications of the organization, e.g., "This is publication number

657 from AZTI-Tecnalia."


Write up the References

• Typically, there are more mistakes in the references than in any other

part of the manuscript. It is one of the most annoying problems, and

causes great headaches among editors. Now, it is easier since to avoid

these problem, because there are many available tools.

• In the text, you must cite all the scientific publications on which your

work is based. But do not over-inflate the manuscript with too many

references – it doesn't make a better manuscript! Avoid excessive self-

citations and excessive citations of publications from the same region.

• Minimize personal communications, do not include unpublished

observations, manuscripts submitted but not yet accepted for

publication, publications that are not peer reviewed, grey literature, or

articles not published in English.

• You can use any software, such as EndNote or Mendeley, to format and

include your references in the paper. Most journals have now the

possibility to download small files with the format of the references,

allowing you to change it automatically.

http://endnote.com/

http://mendeley.com/


Write up the References (2)

Make the reference list and the in-text citation conform strictly to the

style given in the Guide for Authors. Remember that presentation of

the references in the correct format is the responsibility of the author,

not the editor. Checking the format is normally a large job for the

editors. Make their work easier and they will appreciate the effort.

Finally, check the following:

• Spelling of author names

• Year of publications

• Usages of "et al."

• Punctuation

• Whether all references are included


4. Simple Steps in Writing & Example


Condenses the paper’s content in a few words (Memadatkan

isi artikel dalam beberapa kata)

Captures the readers’ attention (Merebut/menawan

perhatian pembaca)

Differentiates the paper from other papers of the same subject

area (Membedakan artikel kita dari artikel lain dari area

subjek yang sama)

Judul artikel yang baik?


Tiga tip dasar yang perlu diingat saat menulis judul:

Keep it simple, brief and attractive: Fungsi utama judul adalah

memberikan ringkasan isi artikel dengan tepat. Jadi jagalah judulnya

singkat & jelas. Gunakan kata kerja aktif dan bukan frasa berbasis kata

benda yang kompleks, dan hindari detail yang tidak perlu. Selain itu,

judul yang bagus untuk artikel penelitian biasanya sekitar 10-12 kata.

Use appropriate descriptive words: Judul artikel penelitian yang

baik seharusnya berisi kata kunci yang digunakan dalam naskah dan

menentukan sifat dasar (nature) penelitian. Pikirkan istilah yang akan

digunakan orang untuk mencari studi Anda dan memasukkannya ke

dalam judul Anda.

Avoid abbreviations and jargon: Singkatan yang sudah sangat

dikenal seperti TOEFL, PhD dan sebagainya dapat digunakan dalam

judul artikel. Namun, singkatan dan jargon lain yang kurang dikenal

atau spesifik yang tidak akan segera familiar bagi pembaca harus

ditinggalkan.

Prinsip dasar menulis Judul artikel yang baik?


Five (5) simple steps in writing a good title for your paper

• STEP 1 : Ask yourself these questions and make note of the answers:

- What is my paper about?

- What techniques/ designs were used?

- Who/what is studied?

- What were the results?

• STEP 2: Use your answers to list key words.

• STEP 3: Create a sentence that includes the key words you listed.

• STEP 4: Delete all unnecessary/ repetitive words and link the remaining.

• STEP 5: Delete non-essential information and reword the title.


Title: Critical thinking, questioning and student

engagement in Korean university English courses

• STEP 1 : Ask yourself these questions and make note of the answers: - What is my paper about? The paper explores the viability of higher-level questioning in student-

centered activities to elevate critical thinking and increase student engagement among Korean university English majors.

- What techniques/ designs were used? The author examines research that identifies limitations for Korean students associated with their reluctance to speak or share opinions in class due to sociocultural influences in the classroom.

- Who/what is studied? Korean students in Korean university English courses

- What were the results? Findings revealed that cultural and institutional factors, as well as limitations in English language proficiency, can impact participation in student-centered, critical thinking activities.

• STEP 2: Use your answers to list key words higher-level questioning, student-centered activities, critical thinking, student engagement, Korean university English majors, Korean students, reluctance to speak or share opinions in class, sociocultural influences in the classroom

• STEP 3: Create a sentence that includes the key words you listed Higher-level questioning, critical thinking, student-centered activities and student engagement in Korean university English majors to speak or share opinions in class due to sociocultural influences

• STEP 4: Delete all unnecessary/repetitive words and link the remaining Higher-level questioning, critical thinking and student engagement in Korean university English majors to speak or share opinions in class

• STEP 5: Delete non-essential information and reword the title Critical thinking, questioning and student engagement in Korean university English courses


Abstract


Introduction


Introduction

Background

Rationale/justification


Introduction

Problem Statement


Introduction

Objectives


Introduction

Scope


Literature Review/

Related Works


Literature Review/Related

Works



Works



Works

Masih panjang …..


Material & Methodology


Results and Discussion


Conclusion


5. Most common reasons for

journal rejection


Most common reasons for journal rejection

Rejection is the norm in academic publishing. Even researchers at the

top of their field have experienced rejection.

1. Lack of originality, novelty, or significance

2. Mismatch with the journal

3. Flaws in study design

4. Poor Writing and Organization

5. Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

6. Rejection reasons not related to manuscript quality


2.1 Lack of originality, novelty, or significance

Results that are not generalizable

Use of methods that have become obsolete because of new technologies or techniques

Secondary analyses that extend or replicate published findings without adding substantial knowledge

Studies that report already known knowledge but positions the knowledge as novel by extending it to a new geography, population, or cultural setting

Results that are unoriginal, predictable, or trivial

Results that have no clinical, theoretical, or practical implications

Journal editors typically prefer to publish:

groundbreaking new research (introducing new ideas or methods)

constantly on the lookout for research that is exciting and fresh

Many authors tend to cite the reason that “this has never been studied before” to explain why their paper is significant. This is not good enough; the study needs to be placed in a broader context. Authors should give specific reasons why the research is important


2.2 Mismatch with the journal

Findings that are of interest to a very narrow or specialized audience

that the journal does not cater to specifically

Manuscripts that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal

Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s readership

Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by the journal

(e.g., case report submitted to a journal that explicitly states it

doesn’t publish case reports)

Many manuscripts are rejected outright by journals, before they even

undergo peer review, because the manuscript is not appropriate for the

journal’s readership or does not fit into the journal’s aims and scope.


2.3 Flaws “cacat”in study design

Poorly formulated research question

Poor conceptualization of the approach to answering the research question

Choice of a weak or unreliable method

Choice of an incorrect method or model that is not suitable for the problem to be studied

Inappropriate statistical analysis

Unreliable or incomplete data

Inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation

Small or inappropriately chosen sample

Even a well-written paper will not mask flaws in study design. Indeed, this is a fundamental problem that must be resolved in the initial stages of the study, while conceptualizing the study. The best way to guard against such flaws is to do a thorough literature review to determine the best methodologies and practices for your own research.


2.4 Poor Writing and Organization

Inadequate description of methods

Discussion that only repeats the results but does not interpret them

Insufficient explanation of the rationale for the study

Insufficient literature review

Conclusions that do not appear to be supported by the study data

Failure to place the study in a broad context

Introduction that does not establish the background of the problem

studied

It is very important for authors to present a persuasive and rational

argument in their papers. You should be able to convince readers that

your research is both sound and important through your writing.


2.5 Inadequate preparation of the manuscript

Failure to follow the journal’s Instructions for Authors

Sentences that are not clear and concise

Title, abstract, and/or cover letter that are not persuasive

Wordiness and excessive use of jargon

Large number of careless errors like poor grammar or spelling mistakes

Poorly designed tables or figures

Non-English-speaking authors often confront an additional problem: peer

reviewers do not always distinguish between the manuscript content and

style of writing. Thus, their manuscripts may end up getting negative

comments even if the research is of high quality.

However, all the problems in this category are easily fixable, either by

asking a native English speaking friend or colleague to review the paper or

by getting the paper professionally edited and formatted.


2.6 Rejection reasons not related to manuscript quality

Low quality of the manuscript is not the only reason for rejections.

Some major factors that can also affect journal decisions are:

a. Space constraints

b. Quality and experience of peer reviewers

c. Volume of submissions

d. Journal’s decision-making policy

e. The journal editor is looking for something specific at a particular

time

f. The journal receives more than one submission on the same topic


Space constraints

It is not uncommon for journals to reject high-quality manuscripts, and

the primary reason for this is lack of space. Journals want to publish

on a range of topics that represent the entire scope of the journal.

Editors of print journals especially have to pick and choose which

papers to publish, since they can only publish a limited number of

articles. Open access journals are less constrained by this

consideration since space is not a big issue for them.


Quality and experience of peer reviewers

The quality of peer review varies widely according to reviewers’

professional experience, educational background, research

interests, etc.


Volume of submissions

For obvious reasons, journals that attract a large number of

submissions will also reject a large number of manuscripts. For

example, Nature receives 10,000 submissions a year, making the

rejection of even high quality manuscripts inevitable.


Journal’s decision-making policy

This varies widely among journals. For example, some journals follow

a policy of rejecting any manuscript that will require major revisions,

while some journals will complete another round of peer review if

they are unsure of the manuscript's quality.


The journal editor is looking for something specific at a

particular time

Sometimes, journal editors may wish to publish a thematic issue of the

journal or may be interested in a current hot topic, in which case

they might tend to accept more papers focusing on that particular

topic.


The journal receives more than one submission on the

same topic

In such cases, the journal may well choose to publish only one of the

manuscripts, rejecting the other for no other reason than that they

already have a paper on a similar topic.


Remarks

How can you publish research papers in international journals?

I suggest few things, your papers should:

• Present new methods of analysis or experimentation.

• Present a new process, design, or technology.

• Discuss and provide fresh thoughts on topics we address

• Be written in clear and understandable language (Ditulis dalam

bahasa yang jelas dan mudah dipahami).

• Be of interest to the reader of journals you are publishing.

• Be of long-term value for the profession because of the above

attributes.


Thank You

Scientific Significance for international Publication, Ethics &...

Documents

Transcript of Scientific Significance for international Publication, Ethics &...