Download
1 / 42
420 likes | 421 Views
TIPS YANG MUDAH ASAL ADA KESUNGGUHAN AGAR JURNAL BISA TERINDEKS JADI JURNAL PERINGKAT 2
E N D
Tata KelolaJurnalMenujuAkreditasiSINTA 2 FaizalRisdianto IAIN Salatiga REGISTER JOURNAL hadbeen accredited LEVEL 2 orSINTA 2at 24th October 2018 by Indonesia Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (RistekDikti) http://journalregister.iainsalatiga.ac.id/index.php/register/
REGISTER JOURNAL is a peer-reviewed National academic journal of studies in Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching (ELT) published Bi-annually by IAIN Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia every June and December. It has been accredited LEVEL 2 orSINTA 2at 24th October 2018 by Indonesia Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (RistekDikti) of The Republic of Indonesia as an achievement for the Peer-reviewed journal which has excellent quality in management and publication. The recognition published in Director Decree (SK No. 30/E/KPT/2018) and effective until 2021.
5 AspekPenting • 1. Author Guidelines/Gaya Selingkung. • 2. Penyediaan Template Artikel & Konsistensi • 3. Diversity of Reviewers, Editors & Authors • 4. Publication Ethics sesuaidengan COPE • 5. JumlahSitasi di GS + Scopus Citedness. • 6. Pastikan DOI-nyaaktif, bukan Broken link.
1. Author guidelines • Double-Blind Peer Review Guidelines • This journal ensures double-blind review for every submitted manuscript. It means that in the review process, this journal conceals both the identity of reviewer and author and vice versa.
Writing arrangement • General Organization of the Paper ¬ 12pt, Times New Roman bold
IMRAD VS NON- IMRAD? • In scientific writing, IMRAD or IMRaD (/ˈɪmræd/) Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) is a common organizational structure (a document format).
Introduction • In Introduction, Authors should state the objectives of the work at the end of introduction section. Before the objective, Authors should provide an adequate background, and very short literature survey in order to record the existing solutions/method, to show which is the best of previous researches, to show the main limitation of the previous researches, to show what do you hope to achieve (to solve the limitation), and to show the scientific merit or novelties of the paper. • This section discusses the purposes of the study or research problems, the contribution to knowledge, and research gap. Please state them clearly in the beginning paragraph supported by related theories in the next paragraphs.
Methods • Materials and methods should make readers be able to reproduce the experiment. Provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced. Methods already published should be indicated by a reference: only relevant modifications should be described. Do not repeat the details of established methods. • This section explains the rationale for the application of specific approaches, methods, procedures or techniques used to identify, select, and analyze information applied to understand the research problem/project, thereby, allowing the readers to critically evaluate your project’s/study's overall validity and reliability.
Results and Discussion • Results should be clear and concise. The results should summarize (scientific) findings rather than providing data in great detail. Please highlight differences between your results or findings and the previous publications by other researchers. The discussion should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. A combined Results and Discussion section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature.
Abstract and Keywords • Abstract should stand alone, means that no citation in abstract. Consider it the advertisement of your article. Abstract should tell the prospective reader what you did and highlight the key findings. The abstract should be in one paragraph. The font is Times New Roman, 12 pt, italic, and justify. Abstract is in 200-250 words, which is followed by 3-5 keywords. • The abstract should succinctly describe your entire paper. It comprises of the purposes of the research, method, and the findings of the research. Keywords are the labels of your manuscript and critical to correct indexing and searching. Each words/phrase in keyword should be separated by a semicolon (;), not a comma (,).
Conclusions • Conclusions should only answer the objectives of research. Tells how your work advances the field from the present state of knowledge. Without clear Conclusions, reviewers and readers will find it difficult to judge the work, and whether or not it merits publication in the journal. • Do not repeat the Abstract, or just list experimental results. Provide a clear scientific justification for your work, and indicate possible applications and extensions. You should also suggest future experiments and/or point out those that are underway.
References • Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. Cite only items that you have read. Do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive self‐citations. Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region. • Check each reference against the original source (authors name, volume, issue, year, DOI Number). Please use Reference Manager Applications like EndNote, Mendeley, Zotero, etc. Use other published articles in the same journal as models.
Referensi ideal adalah 30 untukmenujujurnalnasionaldan 60-100 untukjurnalinternasional. (By Prof Al Makin). • ReferensiKurangdari 10 ada Editor yang mengatakanituadalahtulisan main-main saja. • Sumber primer 40-80 persendariartikeljurnaldan proceeding. Selebihnyadaribuku.
Section A: Publication and authorship • All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. • Review process is blind peer review. • The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
Section B: Authors’ responsibilities • Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere. • Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. • Authors must participate in the peer review process.
Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. • Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
Example of the Review • There are several major weaknesses of the paper: • The writer needs to read more current research and theoretical framework on teacher talk. The lack of knowledge of teacher talk is also seen in the inconsistency of the terms use. • In the Background of the Study section, for example, the writer seems to use the term ‘educator’s dialect’ to refer to teacher talk whereas the two terms are not interchangeable. Even if they are, they writer needs to indicate it since the beginning and give a strong reason why the two terms are similar.
Key words also need to be adequately explain such as ‘supportive teacher talk’ and how it relates to Hughes’ (1990) groupings of teacher talk. Also, when the writer chose to use Hughes’ as the framework he adopted, he needs to explain the reason.
The significance of the study is absence. Even after finishing reading the ‘Background of the study,’ I still could not understand why this research is necessary. Stating the significance of the study is important to ‘make a case’ why the study is important and how it will narrow/fill the gap of existing studies in teacher talk.
Important contextual information is missing, such as: • How long was each class? Why the writer only observed two classes? I think conducting a research based on two classes were not enough. I particularly interested to know how the writer handled the ‘observer paradox’ since they only observed for a very limited time. • Why chose the two classes? What were the consideration? • How many students were in the class? What were the class about? What were the typical structure of the class? Etc.
Section D: Editors’ responsibilities • Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. • Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. • Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
Notes from our Editor • We made some changes, particularly the styles, and proofread your paper without changing the content of your paper. We also suggested you to make some minor correction. PLEASE DO THE REVISION WITHIN ONE WEEK. If you disagree with the changes, please give notes in your revision. Please highlight your correction in different color.
We rearrange the paragraphs of the introduction to meet the new journal’s style published in next volumes. We put the research purposes, research gap, or novelties in the first paragraph followed by supported themes or theories.
You have many passive sentences, which you could make them active voices easily. We did some changes on them, even though there are still many passive sentences. • We use APA 6. Please check and Revise your references.
Your manuscript has limited number of journals as the references. Journals in your references is around 30%, can you add some journals in order to make it minimally 40%? The journal must be published within the last ten years.
Retraction • The papers published in REGISTER Journal will be consider to retract in the publication if : • They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error) • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication) • it constitutes plagiarism. • it reports unethical research.
Terimakasih • faizrisd@gmail.com
