All images: Credit to Google

Only for non-commercial purposes

Writing manuscripts for

international journals
Prof Dr Ahmad Maryudi
 Associate Editor
Forest Policy & Economics
Elsevier (Scopus & Web of Science - Q1)
 Reviewer in ± 30 Q1/ Q2 journals
 Currently has only 27 Scopus-indexed
journal articles (75% Q1, 15% Q2),
mostly on socio-political aspects of
forest/ environment
 H-Index Scopus = 11
H-Index Google Scholar = 17
I am just now beginning to discover the difficulty of expressing one’s ideas on
paper. As long as it consists solely of description it is pretty easy; but where
reasoning comes into play, to make a proper connection, a clearness & a moderate
fluency, it is to me, as I have said, a difficulty of which I had no idea.
Charles Darwin

There is nothing to writing..All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed

Ernest Hemingway
You don’t need special traits, special genes, or special motivation
to write a lot.
Productive writing involves harnessing the power of habit, and
habits come from repetition.
Paul Silvia

Successful academic writers do not wait for inspiration. They

do not wait until the last minute. They do not wait for big
blocks of time.
They make a plan for writing every day and stick to it.
Wendy Belcher
1. Selecting appropriate journals
2. Preparing manuscripts
3. Handling submission & Review
Selecting appropriate journals
 Journals used by yourself/
mentors/advisor/colleagues
 Costs (1,500-5,000 USD) – be mindful of “predatory
journals”
 Open access
 Impact factor
Impact Factor
IF reflects the average number of citations to recent articles published in that
journal. It’s one measure of the relative importance of a journal within its field.
High impact factor ~ more important

A = the number of times articles published in 2012 and 2013 were cited by
indexed journals during 2014.
B = the total number of "citable items" published in 2012 and 2013.
A/B = 2014 impact factor
Subject Area Influence on IF (Elsevier)
Journal’s reputation
Reputation of the journal (publisher, editor)
Acceptance/rejection rates (journals with lower
acceptance rates are generally more prestigious)
Quality of accepted articles and authors
Time to publication (speed of peer review, pre-pub
online)
Audience of journal (readership)
Audience Size (indexing & circulation)
Preparing manuscripts
Essential Parts of a Scientific paper
 Title: Describe concisely the core contents of the paper
 Abstract: Summarize the major elements of the paper

 Introduction: provide context and rationale for the study

 Theoretical frames: The analytical lenses the cases analysed
 Methods: Describe the experimental procedures
 Results: Summarize the findings without interpretation
 Discussion: Interpret the findings of the study
 Summary/ conclusions: Summarize the findings

 Acknowledgement: Give credit to those who helped you

 References: List all scientific papers, books and websites that you cited
 Menggambarkan isi tulisan secara keseluruhan
 Judul “mempengaruhi” impresi dari editor
 Indexing dan abstracting sebuah tulisan akan sangat tergantung pada
akurasi judul. Judul yang tidak tepat akan membuat tulisan “hilang”,
dan tidak akan pernah terbaca
 Berisi kata-kata kunci yang merefleksikan isi dari tulisan, concise &
informatif, menggambarkan temuan (finding) yang fundamental
The Abstract
 Menggambarkan isi tulisan – IMRAD
 Mencantumkan temuan inti
 Usahakan ditulis setelah manuskrip siap
 Jangan memberikan informasi yang tidak ada dalam teks
 Jangan mencantumkan referensi kecuali kasus-kasus khusus
 Introduction
The introduction should answer the following questions:
1. What was I studying?
2. Why was this an important question? What did I know about
this topic before I did this study?
3. What model/ approach did I take in this study?
4. A bit of hypothesis and findings(optional)
 What was I studying?
Ex: Forest certification
What do forest audits say? The Indonesian mandatory forest certification
Forest certification—specifying how forests should be managed and timber produced—has become a popular policy
instrument over the past two decades. In general, certification is a process by which forest practices are
assessed against a set of predefined standards (criteria and indicators) agreed upon through third-party
independent audits or verification (Rametsteiner and Simula 2003, Cashore et al. 2004, Maryudi 2009). Since its
emergence, largely as nonstate market-driven governance (Cashore et al. 2004), certification has grown into a
complex field (Bartley 2007). Currently, there is a wide array of certification initiatives, i.e. nonstate and
state-driven (Gulbrandsen 2014, Giessen et al. 2016), market-based and regulatory instruments, as well as those of
a voluntary or mandatory nature (Nurrochmat et al. 2016, Maryudi 2016), with different sets of standards.

Beyond good wood: Exploring strategies for small-scale forest growers and
enterprises to benefit from legal and sustainable certification in Indonesia
The past twenty years have witnessed a worldwide trend in certification initiatives, which specify how forests should
be managed and timber produced. The scope of forest and timber certification varies, from a wide range of
environmental, social and economic aspects to schemes that focus more on legality (Maryudi, 2016). To
encourage forest managers to implement desirable practices, certification promises market incentives of
improved access and/or premium prices for certified products.
 Why was this an important
question? What did I know?
What do forest audits say? The Indonesian mandatory forest
certification
How different certification initiatives produce impacts on the ground has been an area
of scholarly work. There has been a great number of case studies on the impacts of
certification over the past two decades. The studies generally focus on specific
issues…………………A few studies (among others, Blackman et al. 2014, and Lewis and Davis
2015) attempted to assess overall forest management qualities, comparing the degree
of improvement….over space and time. Our study therefore aims to fill the research gap
on the comparisons on the impacts of certification nationwide, with Indonesian PHPL
certification selected as a case. In a broader context, the study of the impacts of PHPL
certification is quite timely, as Indonesia has recently become a global leader in forest governance
as the first country in the world to issue a Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT)
License.
.
 What model/ approach did I take
in this study?
What do forest audits say? The Indonesian mandatory forest
certification
Blackman et al. (2014) identify four approaches that have been used to analyse the
impacts of forest certification: (1) quantitative evaluations based on direct
observation, (2) qualitative analyses based on interviews, (3) qualitative analyses
based on secondary data, and (4) CAR analyses. The indirect CAR approach is
nonetheless more suitable to assess the impact of certification using a large
number of cases and datasets, e.g. at the national level, which is the scope of
our study. The approach is also useful to. observe temporal changes in
forest practices (Romero and Tuukka 2013). It is a reasonable proxy for
‘before’and ‘after’ situations in certified forests although it cannot provide a basis
for ‘with/without’ comparisons (Spilbury 2005).
 What was I studying?
Ex: Forest decentralisation

Forest conservation strategies as a political avenue for lower bureaucracies

to gain authority in the recentralising Indonesia
Decentralisation has become an essential feature of forest governance
reforms across the globe since 1980s (Agrawal et al. 2008). It is implemented
in more than 60 developing countries (Andersson et al. 2006). It is promoted to
facilitate improved transparency of governance by increasing representation of
local actors in decision-making, and reduce the planning and transactions costs
(Larson & Soto 2008; Colfer et al. 2008). Decentralisation is broadly defined a a
process by which the central government redistribute its authority to lower
level administrations within the scopes of political-administrative and
territorial regional hierarchies (Larson & Ribot 2004; Sahide et al. 2016; Agrawal
& Ostrom 2001). It is often called as local governance (Wollenberg et al. 2009).
 What was I studying?
Ex: Forest decentralisation

Forest conservation strategies as a political avenue for lower bureaucracies

to gain authority in the recentralising Indonesia
Central governments of several countries attempt to block the path of
decentralisation despite the official rhetoric (Ribot et al. 2006; Sunam et al.
2013). They create policies and administrative and technical procedures impeding
decentralisation in order to maintain their power (Sahide et al. 2016; Baral et al.
2017; Maryudi 2012). ….Complete or partial re-centralisation has ostensibly become
a political agenda in many countries in recent years (Robins & Kanowski 2011;
Sahide, Supratman, et al. 2016; Basnyat et al. 2017). Such a case also occurs in
Indonesia. the central government implemented recentralisation policy by issuing
the Local Government Law No. 23/ 2014, which removes the autonomy of the
district bureaucracy for natural resource and forest management.
 Why was this an important
question? What did I know?
Forest conservation strategies as a political avenue for lower bureaucracies
to gain authority in the recentralising Indonesia
This paper analyses the bureaucratic politics and power struggles between central
and local governments concerning the re-centralisation policy of forests in Indonesia.
…There is an the increasingly rich body of literature on bureaucratic politics and
power, focusing on actors, interests and power, in forest and natural resource policy.
Giessen and colleagues (Giessen et al. 2014; Rahman & Giessen 2017; Sahide et al.
2016; Giessen et al. 2016; Burns et al. 2017; Giessen et al. 2009) have chiefly worked
in this research area over the past few years. Their work has nonetheless focussed
on either global-domestic nexus or inter-bureaucracies within the central state,
and barely addressed power struggles between and/ or among different
bureaucracies at the different levels of domestic sphere. Our research, occupies
a specific research niche, and hence nicely complements their work. .
 What model/ approach did I take
in this study? A bit of hypothesis
and findings(optional)
Forest conservation strategies as a political avenue for lower bureaucracies
to gain authority in the recentralising Indonesia
This paper will specifically analyse the local initiative by Tambrauw District of West Papua
in integrating management of conservation areas into district governance through so-
called “conservation district” policy. We asked what are the driving factors of the
environmentally-minded policy given the character of local governments of using
forests for economic development (Setiawan et al. 2016; Susanti & Maryudi 2016),
Environment conservation, as (Escobar 1998) notes, does not reflect conservation
activities, but also exhibits a means of achieving political purposes. Considering Tambrauw
is a newly-established district (see below), we hypothesise that the policy, which is
formally narrated as promoting forest conservation, masks the real interests of
economic gains from the forests. In this paper, we further analyse the means by which
the local bureaucracy pursues its interests.
.
 Theoretical underpins
• The analytical lenses the cases analysed
• The basic assumption of theory-driven approach is that a certain
phenomenon policy follows regularities which can be described and
explained by theories (Krott et al. 2000, p.3).
• Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand
phenomena and to challenge and extend existing knowledge within
the limits of critical bounding assumptions.
• Applying or combining existing social theories, creating new theories
 Theoretical underpins
Forest conservation strategies as a political avenue for lower bureaucracies
to gain authority in the recentralising Indonesia
We asked what are the driving factors of the environmentally-minded policy given the character of
local governments of using forests for economic development,…Hypothesise that the policy, which is
formally narrated as promoting forest conservation, masks the real interests of economic gains
from the forests…… the means by which the local bureaucracy pursues its interests.
.
Theories used: Bureaucracy politics and power
 Bureaucracy politics: government composed by numerous bureau
with different interests
 Interests: formal & informal
 Power: source of power, strategies for power
How to write the Materials and Methods section
Validity, reliability/ replicability!
• Provide full details so that the experiments are reproducible
• If the peer reviewer has doubts that the experiments could be repeated,
the manuscript will be rejected.
• Describe the research design in detail
• Do not mix some of the Results in this section
 How to write the Results
• It needs to be clearly and simply stated since it constitutes the new
knowledge contributed to the world
• The purpose of this section is to summarize and illustrate the
findings in an orderly and logical sequence, without interpretation
• The text should guide the reader through the findings, stressing the
major points
• Do not describe methods that have already been described in the
M&M section or that have been inadvertently omitted
Components of the discussion
 Its primary purpose is to show the relationships among observed facts
 Try to present the principles, relationships, and generalizations shown by the
Results
 Point out any exceptions or any lack of correlation and define unsettled points
 Show how your results and interpretations agree or contrast with previously
published work
 Discuss the theoretical implications of your work, and any possible practical
applications.
Submission & Review
Cover letter
Dear Editors,

We would like submit our article entitled “ The emerging power of peasant
farmers and their coalition networks in the uses of state forestland
Central Java, Indonesia” to your journal. Our paper analyses the
increasing occurrence of spontaneous and organized landless
movements and struggles demanding access to and use of state
forestland in Indonesia. It applies the theoretical framework of ACP
developed by Krott et al. (2013).We highly hope that this article warrants
for a consideration in your journal.
Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,
Ahmad Maryudi, Erlita R. Citraningtyas, Ris H. Purwanto
Dear the Editor,

I would like submit the 2nd revision of my paper (1894R2) entitled: “The
choice of timber legality verification as a policy instrument to
combat illegal logging in Indonesia”. I greatly appreciate the support
from and the dedication of the reviewers to improve the quality of the
manuscript. Overall, I mostly agree with all comments and suggestions. I
trust that revised version meets the required quality for publication.
Once again, I really enjoyed the whole review process. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,
Ahmad Maryudi
 Dear reviewers,
I would like to sincerely thank
to you for the valuable and
constructive comments,
from which we benefit a lot
in the revision process.
Allow me to carefully
respond your reviews and
suggestions, below.
It is a big encouragement for us that both of you consider
our case as of extra significance and has a big potential
for publication in the journal. We would like to sincerely
thank to you for the valuable and constructive
comments, from which we benefit a lot in the revision of
the manuscript. We have made some major revisions as
recommended.
I sincerely thank for the endorsement for
publication of the manuscipt. I
benefited greatly from your valuable
and constructive review. In the
revision, the paper is slightly changed
to elaborate comments from
Reviewer #1 (below). I trust
nonetheless that the revised version
is in a much better shape for
publication in the journal. Once again,
we enjoyed the review process and
acknowledge your significant
contribution in the paper.
 You argue that timber LV is a political instrument to combat illegal logging, and by citing
Boecher (2012) you mention four types of forest policy instruments that are exist now.
Unfortunately, I did not see your definite position on timber LV, whether it is regulatory,
economic, cooperative, or informational. It is useful for the readers and future works if you
explicitly mention your sight in this deliberation.

I agree that the paper needs to state clearly what sort of instrument is LV in Indonesia. It is the
paper’s position to view LV (SVLK) as a regulatory instrument as it is promulgated by a
government institution and is imposed to forest management/ industries. I mentioned in
Introduction (paragraph 2) that the governing institution of LV is state. This clearly indicates that
LV is a regulatory instrument. In the revised version, I also states that LV (SVLK) is a regulatory
instrument imposed on all types of forest management and industries. I also outlined that as well
in paragraph 1 section 4.4.
 However, this paper lacks information about the structure of forest
administration and forest management in Indonesia (particularly in Java) which
can contribute to the analysis. So the reader could understand the wider
context of forest structure and its relation to the power structure on the
ground.

[We fully agree with you on the importance on highlighting the structural environment
(management and administration of forest in Java). In the revised manuscript, we added
a new section (Section 3) on “Overview of administration and management of
forestland in Java”. This section is also useful to guide readers with better
You basically (or implicitly) argue that using C&I framework (e.g. like the work of Ritchie et al) to
evaluate community forestry progress is cumbersome (or not too simple) and suggest that
evaluation should look back at the idea of community forestry and focus on people and forest
(first para section 2). I see this is a very fundamental argument in your paper and it needs to be
elaborated and substantiated a bit more. I would suggest you to address and make very explicit.
What wrong with C&I approach? You will have to explain this at length otherwise it is difficult to
accept your approach no matter how simple it is (according to you). You need to show
empirically the weaknesses of C&I approach and how your proposed approach can add value to
this. You need to be very strong in your argument as C&I framework have been widely used and
remains a generally accepted way to assess sustainable forest management including community
forestry.
[We are aware of the numerous sets of criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry, including
those exclusively-dedicated for community forestry (e.g. Ritchie et al., 2000). Indeed, we do not
discount the fact that the C&I provide robust and comprehensive approach in assessing
sustainable community forestry. In this paper, nonetheless, we do not analyze ‘sustainable
community forestry’ per se. Instead, we are particularly interested in seeing whether community
forestry has produced the impacts as initially intended, which in this paper we refer to as the
core policy objectives of community forestry. The focus on core policy objective allows rapid but
appropriate evaluation (in the intro), and eventually reduces the associated costs and time
without compromising the goals of the evaluation (last sentence of conclusions)]
You mention about the operation of SVLK prior to the formal signing. It is
quite helpful for readers to imagine if you explain about the implementation
(how, when and where etc. was the operation implemented?).

[Unfortunately I decided not to go into details on the implementation and

evaluation of LV, as I focused on the instrument choice, as suggested by
guess editors.]
Your descriptions about SVLK seems to emphasize that SVLK may be a
panacea to tackle illegal logging and realize legal timber export to EU and
other countries. However, given the past frustrating experiences of
inadequate forest management, I am wondering if the SVLK really functions
effectively for achieving its objectives. Does SVLK really function effectively
in the ground? Good examples of implementation of SVLK for state
production forests might be helpful for readers to easily understand the
real situations of producing verified timbers.

[The policy implementation and evaluation are indeed important. I believed

that they are beyond the scope of the paper, i.e. instrument choice. I
therefore removed all of discussion regarding implementation and
evaluation, including the progress of SVLK.Nonetheless, I raised the
importance of evaluating the policy in last section.]
Perhutani in Java has legal forest management concession, but the forest administration
is still under District Forest Agency (Dinas Kehutanan Kabupaten or Provinsi). So the
forest management (not administration) is operated by the Perhutani. So the term forest
administered by Perhutani in line 4 should be detailed explained, what kind of forest
administration. Then, the term 'forest agency' on this paper should be clear, whether it is
Dinas Kehutanan Kabupaten or forest management unit KPH/BKPH. Both of this
institution should be clearly distinguished on the paper.
[ We need to clarify here that Perhutani has a dual role
(administration tasks and management operations) regarding the
forest of Java. We provided overview on this in Section 3,
mentioned above. Perhutani is also a state apparatus in the case
of Java. In fact, they are nearly autonomous, including of Dinas. In
most cases, Dinas (Kabupaten and Province) deal only with forests
on privateland. We agree to remove “forest agency” and instead
use a more consistent term.]
 Rejection: not the end of the world
 Everyone has papers rejected – do not take it personally
 Try to understand why the paper was rejected
 Note that you have received the benefit of the editors and
reviewers’ time; take their advice seriously
 Re-evaluate your work and decide whether it is appropriate to
submit the paper elsewhere.
 If so, begin as if you are going to write a new article. Read the
Guide for Authors of the new journal, again and again.

55
 Never treat publication as a lottery by resubmitting a rejected
manuscript directly to another journal without any significant
revision!!! It won’t save any of your time and energy…

The original reviewers (even editors) may eventually find it, which can lead to animosity
towards the author.

A suggested strategy
– In your cover letter, declare that the paper was rejected and name the journal.
– Include the referees’ reports and a detailed letter of response, showing how each comment
has been addressed.
– Explain why you are resubmitting the paper to this journal, e.g., this journal is a more
appropriate journal; the manuscript has been improved as a result of its previous review; etc.

56