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.

DIKTI - Workshop Pembinaan Jurnal Menuju Jurnal Ilmiah Bereputasi Internasional, Surabaya 10 September 2014 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: (terakreditasi “A” Dikti, terindeks Scopus Q3) Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Power Electronics and Drive Systems, ISSN: (terindeks Scopus Q3) Managing Editor, International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering , ISSN: (terindeks Scopus Q2) WA:

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: Journal Citation Reports - See how to identify top performing journals and link to view all of the journals included in the 2017 update at: If you have any questions or require assistance please contact Jisc Web of Science Service for UK Education Support at:

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: % of citable items on each Journal Profile page:

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).

Scopus: CiteScore

Metrics make journal assessment more complete & transparent

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. Pendahuluan

SCImago Journal & Country Rank
The SCImago Journal & Country Rank adalah portal yang mencakup jurnal dan indikator ilmiah negara yang dikembangkan dari informasi yang terkandung dalam database Scopus® (Elsevier BV). Indikator ini dapat digunakan untuk menilai dan menganalisis domain ilmiah. Platform ini mengambil namanya dari indikator SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), yang dikembangkan oleh SCImago dgn algoritma yg dikenal secara luas sbg “Google PageRank™”. Indikator ini menunjukkan visibilitas jurnal yang terdapat dalam database Scopus® dari 1996. SCImago adalah kelompok riset dari Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), University of Granada, Extremadura, Carlos III (Madrid) and Alcalá de Henares, yang berdedikasi untuk analisis informasi, representasi dan retrieval melalui teknik visualisasi.

SCImago Journal & Country Rank (cont.)

2016 Journal Citation Reports®
Journal Citation Reports®: a unique Web-based research tool that allows you to evaluate and compare journals using citation data drawn from approximately 12,000 scholarly and technical journals and conference proceedings from more than 3,300 publishers in over 80 countries. Journal Citation Reports is the only source of citation data on journals, and includes virtually all specialties in the areas of science, technology, and social sciences. Update News · 2016 JCR Release · JCR Data Updates · Expanded Metrics and Features · Editorial Information · How to Cite JCR · Browser Information · Thomson Reuters Customer Technical Support 2016 JCR Release This release of Journal Citation Reports provides 2015 data. The 2016 data will be made available in the 2017 Journal Citation Reports release. Journals appearing in JCR A complete list of the titles covered in this year's JCR is available at: A list of journals receiving their first Impact Factor is available at: Ref:

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: Journal Citation Reports - See how to identify top performing journals and link to view all of the journals included in the 2017 update at: If you have any questions or require assistance please contact Jisc Web of Science Service for UK Education Support at: 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: % of citable items on each Journal Profile page:

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.

Maximum number of authors
Types of paper Article type Description Word count* Abstract References Figures and Tables Miscellaneous Maximum number of authors Book Review None 1-3 Solicited “diminta” & Unsolicited 1 Original Article 3,000 Structured 300 words 50 6 Unsolicited 10 Review Articles Basic Science / Clinical 4,000 100 Solicited & Unsolicited 5 Brief Reports 1,500 150 words 20 2-3 3 & group name Letters Within 8 weeks of publication, original author to respond 500 3-5 3 Bridging the Gap 1-2 Solicited Meeting Reports Commentary 10-12 Visual Vaccinology 200 Regular Feature 2

The Editor asks: What did I learn from reading this paper?
Is it worth knowing? Will 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

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

Three (3) fundamental rules yang perlu dipahami Authors
Identify your audience Think about what it is that interests your audience As you write, always keep your audience and its interests in mind The most important of good writing practices:  “Write with the reader in mind” = melayani pembaca  NOT in our mind

2. 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. Lack of originality, novelty, or significance Mismatch with the journal Flaws in study design Poor Writing and Organization Inadequate preparation of the manuscript 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 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: Space constraints Quality and experience of peer reviewers Volume of submissions Journal’s decision-making policy The journal editor is looking for something specific at a particular time 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.

3. Key Factors for Quality Articles

Ukuran kualitas articles?
What are the key factors to measure the quality articles? Originality Novelty Addressing new problems/complex issues Useful for real world applications Adaptability (flexibility)- diversified Data , scalability Applicability Generality Future Directions

Originality “Keaslian”
What is Originality? An original work is one not received from others nor one copied from or based on upon the work of others. It should be unique solution and invented by ourselves based on our own thinking but not from others thinking or any existing papers/concepts. How to Prove Originality? –Literature review Introduction section

Novelty “Kebaruan” What is Novelty?
It is some thing new or Modified one or Motivated one or Inspired one. It may be based on existing concepts or basis/Hypothesis. Originality can be a Novelty but Novelty cannot be Original - This is my argument. Basis should be supported either by mathematical Model or Facts (if he is not good in mathematics). Most important is Literature Survey and Experimental results with state of the art methods .

Addressing a New/Unsolved Problem/Complex Issue
What are New Problem and Complex Problem? Problem should not have been addressed in the past. New problems may exist because of new applications and requirements. How to prove, it is a new problem? Literature Survey and citing new applications. New Problem vs Novelty ????

Useful for Real World Applications
Identify exact Applications rather than citing general applications. Introduction should pin point exact application. Clear experimental results for the specific application. Comparative study with the state of the art methods.

The method should work for different data, size and large data.
Adaptability The method should work for different data, size and large data. It should have ability to cope with distortions and unexpected. It should require minimum changes. How to prove it Experimental results on diversified data, large data along with the benchmark data

The same concept can be used to solve different problems.
Applicability The concept or idea should work for different applications with minimum changes. The same concept can be used to solve different problems. In other words, it should be easy to implement and understand. E.g. Conference work

Generality The idea or concept should work for general data.
In other words, it should give optimal solution to both specific data and general data.

Future Directions The scope of the problem or the method should be expandable. One should not say, we have solved the problem completely (100%)-impossible. Present failure cases of the method and mention drawbacks/weakness. idea or concept should give insights about future issues when the researcher read the paper.

4. Skeleton (Kerangka) of an Article

Skeleton (kerangka) of an Article
Structured IMRaD formula (will discuss more on next slide) Unstructured Paragraphs- few sentences summarizing each section

IMRaD formula Artikel  Tell a story – clarity (jelas, gamblang…) and conciseness (keringkasan yg padat isinya) Make them easy for indexing and searching (informative, attractive & effective) Title Authorship Abstract & Keywords Main text (IMRAD) Introduction Method Results And Discussion Conclusions Acknowledgements References Journal SPACE is not unlimited Kondisikan agar Authors menyajikan artikel mereka as concise as possible

5. Steps to Organizing your manuscript

Steps to organizing your manuscript
Prepare the figures and tables Write the Methods Write up the Results 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? Write a clear Conclusion Write a compelling introduction Write the Abstract Compose a concise and descriptive Title Select Keywords for indexing Write the Acknowledgements Write up the References

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: 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: 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.

Think about appropriate axis label size
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. 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.

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

6. Example: Simple Steps in Writing

Judul artikel yang baik?
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)

Prinsip dasar menulis 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 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.

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

Literature Review/Related Works
Masih panjang …..

Material & Methodology

Results and Discussion

Conclusion

Thank You Madloba!

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.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

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.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback