TOPIC 2. INVESTIGATING PRACTICES AND CONVENTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE WRITING

1.When starting an article, start with a title that generates numerous references. Then, you need to delve deeper into the introduction and draw from published references.

2.You can check the article’s syntactic rating at sinta.kemdiktisaintek.go.id. Challenges faced by students include the difficulty of choosing an article title that generates numerous references, a maximum of 20% plagiarism, finding accurate references, and a lack of in-depth introductions for students both domestically and internationally.

3.The journal is the home of the article. When writing an article, many tools are permitted, such as Grammarly and Google Translate.
80% of the last five years are allowed.
A minimum of 20 references is required, and more is preferable.
The title should have 12 words,
a maximum of 15 pages, and
references in Indonesian-language articles are fine, but it’s better to look for them in foreign or English-language articles.

1. Writing a scientific article begins with identifying a research gap as a basic for research, then supporting it with relevant and up-to-date references. Authors also need to read extensively in journals to understand good writing standards. Then, they determine the title and methods to be used and the focus of the article’s content.
The article submission process goes through several stages: initial review by the editor, followed by assessment by reviewers, revision, and finally publication. This process is quite lengthy and usually requires several revisions.

2. A quality scientific article has a clear research gap, complete references, a detailed methodology, and a systematic structure. Furthermore, its main strength lies in its content.
Challenges often faced by authors include the risk of plagiarism, difficulty identifying research gaps, inconsistencies between the title and methods, lack of methodological detail, academic language barriers (especially English), and low self-confidence.

3. Authors need resources like Google Scholar to find references and tools like Google Translate to assist with language. Reading previous journals is also important as a reference.
The main components of an article include research gaps, references, methodology, writing structure, and correct citations. The role of editors and reviewers is crucial in improving the quality of articles through the evaluation and revision process.

1. my findings on the writing and submission of scientific articles that the process of writing and submitting a scientific article usually begins by deciding on a title and then finding references that match the topic we want to study(the references should be relevant) reading journal articles is also important to understand proper academic writing and from there the title, method, and main focus of the article can be decided

2.a good scientific article usually has a clear research gap, enough references, and a clear explanation of the method.the structure also needs to be neat and easy to follow. Besides that the quality of the article really depends on how strong the content is.some challenges that authors often face are the risk of plagiarism, difficulty in finding a research gap, mismatch between the title and the method, lack of explanation in the methodology, problems with academic English

3.from my experience during the interview,i learn that articles and journals are not actually different rather the a journal functions as a platform or a (home) where scientific articles are published. in writing a scientific article authors need various supporting resources for example like Google Scholar are important for finding reliable references, and reading previous journal articles helps as a guideline and benchmark. In addition tools such as google translate can assist authors in dealing with language difficulties. i also learned that it is generally recommended to use references published within the last five years to ensure the information is up to date and relevant

1. The scientific article submission process requires patience as the waiting time for editor updates can take a year or more depending on the queue. This pattern aligns with other groups’ findings showing that publication duration is often unpredictable.
2. High-quality articles must have a clear research focus, a proper introduction, and a maximum plagiarism level of 20%. The main challenges often encountered are template non-compliance and improper introductory structure, a common pattern also found by other groups.
3. The most important structural component is an abstract that covers the objectives, methods, subjects, results, and novelty in a simple yet engaging way. This indicates a pattern where article effectiveness relies heavily on the author’s ability to present the research core concisely.

1. Based on the discussion and comparison with other groups, writing and submitting a scientific article involves several steps, such as preparing the manuscript based on the journal template, writing each section systematically, and submitting it to a suitable journal. After submission, the review process can take a long time, depending on the journal, reviewers, and submission queue. In some cases, authors may need to follow up with the editor. From other groups’ questions, it is also clear that writers need strategies to stay consistent, such as managing time and setting writing targets. The process may not always follow the initial plan, as changes can happen during writing. Overall, the publication process is complex, time-consuming, and requires patience and consistency.

2. From the discussion, a high-quality article should follow the journal template, have a clear structure (especially in the introduction), maintain low plagiarism, and stay focused on the research topic. A good abstract should include the purpose, method, results, and novelty in a concise way. A strong introduction should clearly explain the background, show the research gap, and state the research objectives. In terms of challenges, article rejection is common and usually caused by incorrect format, weak structure, or unfocused discussion. Another common issue is writer’s block, where authors struggle to start or continue writing. Overall, most challenges are related to technical issues and lack of preparation.

3. The discussion shows that understanding the structure of a scientific article is very important. Each section has a specific role. For example, the results section should present data clearly, while the conclusion should be brief and not include new information. Proper use of references is also important, especially when dealing with secondary citations. Writers need to understand how to cite correctly to avoid mistakes. In addition, tools such as journal templates, plagiarism checkers, and reference managers are helpful. The use of AI is also discussed, and it should be used carefully while following academic ethics. Support from lecturers, reviewers, and peers is also important. Overall, successful academic writing depends not only on individual skills but also on using the right resources, understanding the structure, and using technology wisely.

1. When writing a scientific article, first determine the topic, then conduct research and seek as many references as possible from journals.
From there, the author can determine the title and methodology for the article. After completing the article from beginning to end, it will go through a reviewer assessment process. Authors typically make multiple revisions to accommodate reviewer feedback. The revision process until publication can take quite a long time.

2. A quality scientific article is typically structured according to the requirements, includes accurate data analysis, appropriate research methods, and references to articles within the last five years.
Common challenges faced by authors include inconsistencies in the method and title, limited vocabulary, and a lack of confidence.

3. Authors must understand several tools available for writing scientific articles, such as Google Scholar. They must frequently consult journals and books for reference. Support from a supervisor is also crucial for improving the quality of their writing.

1. I found that very much in the making of scientific articles. starting with the process before creating the article and working on the article, the quality of the article we create and reference, difficulties during creating the article, the structure within the article, etc.

2. The characteristic of high-quality scientific articles that I got from interviews is how we look for the SINTA (Science and Technology Index) and also take references to recent scientific articles. The challenge often faced by authors of scientific articles is to be confused about titles, keywords, and references.

3. The understanding that I gained in the interview was that I knew the first step before making scientific articles, how we did good scientific articles and according to the journals in our respective majors, the percentage of plagiarism, the structure, the use of AI in scientific articles, and know the difficulty of making articles and how to deal with it.

1.I have studied it

2.a)Yes, but there are slight differences.

b)Structure:
The references in the Cakrawala journal are instructed in detail, but there is no minimum citation. In the Ijal journal, only examples of citations are given. There are also 13-word titles in the Cakrawala journal, while the interview section is directed to 12 words. In the Ijal journal, there is no explanation of the words.

c)Introduction:
The Ijal journal article should consist of 15-20 pages (no more than 7,000 words) according to the interview section. However, the journal template instructions specify the wording, as in this example in the Ijal journal. However, this presents a challenge for students because they must delve into the introduction.

3. • Similarities:
– The introduction also discusses the background of the study/problem, research context, literature review, and research objectives.

– Same data collection methods

– FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION both take the research results first so that readers understand the content of the article.

– Conclusions both restate what was discussed in the introduction.

– Purpose or acknowledgements are given to people who will be included in the article.

• Differences:
– The table is already created and placed in the discussion before the conclusion. While the table is created independently, there are rules for placing it in the article after the conclusion and quotations.

• Main pattern:
Students must be more careful in reading the instructions for the template used and avoid using the wrong template and creating a title that generates many references first.

1. I’ve studied it.
2. a. Alignment or Differences:
My interview findings align perfectly with the journal materials regarding originality. The respondent stated that plagiarism must be below 20%, and the sample articles show high originality by using their own data from school observations. Also, the respondent’s tip to make a simple but complete abstract is reflected in both articles.
b. Practices or Standards:
The sample articles reflect the standards mentioned in the interview, especially regarding the Introduction. The respondent said the Introduction determines the quality, and in both articles, the Introduction clearly explains the research focus. Another standard is the template; both articles follow their journal’s format strictly, which the respondent mentioned as a reason to avoid rejection.
c. Challenges and Strategies:
The interview mentioned the challenge of long waiting times (up to 1 year) and the risk of rejection due to high plagiarism. A strategy to overcome this, according to the interview, is to focus on the novelty of the research. The sample articles address this by clearly stating what is new in their study compared to previous research.
3. Key Characteristics of High-Quality
(1) Scientific Writing
Based on the materials and my interview, here are the patterns of high-quality writing:
Integrity: Having a low plagiarism score (maximum 20%).
(2) Structural Accuracy: Following the journal template and having a strong Introduction.
Conciseness: Writing a simple abstract that includes the objective, method, results, and novelty.
(3) Evidence-Based: Supporting arguments with real data (like subjects and methods) and proper citations.
(4) Novelty: Clearly showing the unique value of the research.

1. I’ve studied it.
2. a. Alignment and differences with journal guidelines
My interview findings align with journal guidelines, especially in terms of following the scope, structure, and template, as well as keeping plagiarism low. Both articles also reflect these aspects. However, the interview highlights more practical aspects, such as the involvement of multiple reviewers and the long review process.
b. Practices in the selected articles
Both articles show proper academic structure, especially in the introduction and abstract, which include the purpose, method, and results. Article 1 discusses general teaching strategies, while Article 2 is more specific and contextual (Kurikulum Merdeka). This shows that good articles are not only well-structured but also focused and relevant.
c. Challenges and strategies
The challenges from the interview, such as mismatch with journal scope, weak introduction, and high similarity level, are also addressed in the materials. Both articles reflect strategies to avoid these issues by maintaining clear structure, relevance, and appropriate academic language.
3. Key similarities, differences, and patterns
Overall, there is a consistent pattern across the materials, interview findings, and selected articles. High-quality scientific writing requires a clear structure, relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, and completeness in each section. Both technical aspects (such as template and plagiarism level) and content quality are equally important.
The main difference is that Article 1 is more general, while Article 2 is more specific and contextual, which provides deeper insight. This shows that a more focused and well-aligned article tends to have stronger quality.

1. After reviewing the provided materials and comparing them with the interview results, several similarities, differences, and patterns can be identified regarding scientific writing.

2. a. The interview findings generally align with journal guidelines in emphasizing the importance of a clear structure, especially in the introduction, and maintaining a low level of plagiarism (maximum 20%). Both sources highlight that a well-focused study and adherence to academic standards are essential. However, journal guidelines tend to be more detailed and systematic, while the interview responses are more practical and based on experience.

b. The sample articles reflect many of the practices mentioned in the interviews, such as using a clear research structure, presenting objectives, methods, and results in an organized way, and following a specific template. This is consistent with the interview insight that not following the template and having a weak introduction can lead to rejection. However, the sample articles show a more polished and formal style compared to the more general explanations from the interview.

c. The challenges mentioned in the interview, such as rejection due to incorrect format, weak introduction, and high plagiarism, are addressed in the articles through their proper structure and clarity. The articles also reflect the strategy mentioned in the interview about writing a good abstract: both abstracts include the research purpose, method, subject, and results, and are written concisely. This shows how the strategies from the interview are applied in real academic writing.

3. Overall, the key characteristics of high-quality scientific writing identified from both the interview and the two articles include a clear structure, a strong and relevant introduction, adherence to journal templates, low plagiarism, and a concise but informative abstract. A consistent pattern is that successful articles are well-organized, focused on the research problem, and strictly follow academic and journal standards.

1.A. The findings of these two templates are actually quite consistent. Abstract, Introduction, Method, Findings & Discussion, Conclusion, References.
The difference:
–  The Cakrawala Journal Template is more detailed about the percentage of each section (e.g. Findings at least 60%).
– The IJAL Journal template focuses more on article length (15–20 pages) and formatting rules such as indentation and spacing.

B. Which is obvious:
1. Both use academic standards such as APA Style (7th edition) for citations.
2. The abstract must be concise and include goals, methods, results, and conclusions.
3. Language must be formal and clear.
The difference:
– The Cakrawala Journal template is more detailed in writing tables, pictures, and even numbers.
– The IJAL Journal template is simpler and more direct to points without too many additional technical rules.

C. There are several challenges implied:
1. Keep the structure neat and in proportion (e.g. the results part must be most dominant).
2. Avoiding too long or repeated explanations.
3. Use the citations properly.
Strategy:
– Follow templates consistently.
– Use subheading to clarify the contents.
– It’s concise but informative, especially in the abstract and the results.

2. A. Similarities:
– Clear and systematic structure
– Use formal language
– There is a logical division
– Use valid references
B. Difference:
– Rule level details (More details Cakrawala, simpler IJAL)
– Technical formats such as font, spacing, and content proportions
C. Pattern:
– Findings & Discussion section is always the most important
– Abstracts must be dense and informative
– Method must be clear and replicable
D. Key features of quality scientific writing:
– Obviously, not rambling.
– well-structured
– Based on data and references
– Consistent with journal format

Name: Laili Humairoh

1.Yes, I have studied it.

2.a.In my opinion, the interview results are quite consistent with the journal guidelines. Both emphasize that a scientific article must have a clear structure, such as introduction, method, results, and discussion. In addition, the use of valid data, proper citations, and academic language is also important. The difference is that the interviews discussed real experiences such as repeated revisions, waiting for reviewers, and difficulty managing time. Meanwhile, journal guidelines focus more on technical rules, such as writing format, word count, and journal templates.

b.The sample articles show that scientific writing must be concise, clear, and well-structured. The title is not too long, the abstract goes directly to the main point, and the discussion is organized logically. This is in line with the interview results that mentioned the importance of clarity and systematic writing.
In addition, the use of APA Style and applications such as Mendeley shows the importance of neat citations and professional writing.

c.Some challenges from the interviews are also addressed in the journal guidelines. For example, citation problems are helped by reference rules and reference management tools. Difficulties in explaining data are solved through tables and figures. Problems with article length are helped by dividing proportions for each section of the article.

3.Similarities: In my opinion, the interview results, journal guidelines, and sample articles all emphasize that good scientific writing must have a clear structure, valid data, academic language, and proper citations.
Differences: Journal guidelines focus more on technical rules such as format and templates, while interviews discuss real experiences such as revisions, time management, and writing difficulties. Sample articles show the final polished result.
Patterns: The common pattern is that high-quality scientific writing needs strong ideas, clear methods, systematic writing, and a serious revision process to meet academic standards.

2.
a. quite in line, everything that was conveyed was in accordance with the journal guidelines
b. Based on yesterday’s interview, the practice of writing scientific articles has not fully met the ideal standards expected based on the interview results.
c. One of the difficulties I mentioned is the potential mistakes beginners make that lead to failed journal article publications. The answer is to double-check the writing style, structure, similarities to other authors’ work, appropriateness of the content to the title, and so on.

3.
Similarities: Both use standard, academic language according to the recommended structure.

Differences: The differences in the content of the articles are due to the lack of clearly cited data references to convince the reader of the idea being conveyed.

Pattern: The alignment of the title with the content, the method used with the actual data collection, and the references taken should be included in the references.

https://canva.link/ur6hxluyio7zfhb

https://canva.link/06poo0j8libn0ly

https://canva.link/o240wr2is0gcukr

https://canva.link/u1t6c5nv5y6bot5

https://canva.link/k2tth8a8ttjv03h

https://canva.link/fympi7dljrkq1nv

https://canva.link/2ezkkbbdbs1o6we

https://voca.ro/1k4IF1LhnC1k

https://voca.ro/178UK0B2f2gg

https://voca.ro/1aklfhc6sTEg

https://voca.ro/1h1InHt3ra7e

https://voca.ro/13ZjFa59QF4Z

https://voca.ro/1h1QX3Tjd13S

https://voca.ro/1iLBzSLdNiA3