Tata Kelola Jurnal Menuju

Akreditasi SINTA 2
Faizal Risdianto
IAIN Salatiga
REGISTER JOURNAL had been accredited LEVEL 2 or SINTA 2
at 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 or
SINTA 2 at 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 Aspek Penting
• 1. Author Guidelines/Gaya Selingkung.
• 2. Penyediaan Template Artikel & Konsistensi
• 3. Diversity of Reviewers, Editors & Authors
• 4. Publication Ethics sesuai dengan COPE
• 5. Jumlah Sitasi di GS + Scopus Citedness.
• 6. Pastikan DOI-nya aktif, 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 untuk menuju jurnal
nasional dan 60-100 untuk jurnal
internasional. (By Prof Al Makin).
• Referensi Kurang dari 10 ada Editor yang
mengatakan itu adalah tulisan main-main saja.

• Sumber primer 40-80 persen dari artikel jurnal
dan proceeding. Selebihnya dari buku.
2. Bench-marking of paper template
Our template+consistency
3. Diversity is important
Diversity of Editors
A Request to be a Honorable Editor
Example of acceptance
Rejection is common
4. Publication ethics+COPE
Publicationethics.org/core-practices
 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.
Sabar-ikhlas-Tawakkal for author
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.
Example of Editor’s work
 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.
5. Journal citedness
Scopus citedness
6. Pastikan DOI-nya aktif,
No broken link
• Terima kasih
• faizrisd@gmail.com