- This topic has 54 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Worksheet 2.2 Comparing Interview Insights with Journal Guidelines
- Review the provided materials carefully.
- Compare the content with the insights you gained from your interviews. Consider:
- How do your interview findings align or differ from the journal guidelines?
- What practices or standards in the sample articles reflect (or contrast with) what you observed during interviews?
- Are there any challenges or strategies mentioned in your interviews that are addressed in the materials?
- Identify key similarities, differences, and patterns that indicate key characteristics of high-quality scientific writing?
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. Based on the interview results, this is consistent because the structure is clear and uses academic language.
b. Both journals reflect scientific standards, including abstracts, clear research methods, and data-based discussions. However, there are some areas that are not yet in line: the format is still inconsistent, and the references are not up-to-date.
c. Several challenges that emerged were explained in the interview and discussed again in this journal. This includes the detailed and specific formatting process, which requires using the journal template as a guide, finding the most recent and relevant references, and then double-checking before submission.
3.-Similarities: Both journals use the same scientific structure, employing APA citation style, and prioritize clarity and systematic research content.
-Differences: The Ijal journal is more detailed and specific, while the Kejar Pendidikan journal is more flexible, but still adheres to the template guidelines.
-Main pattern: As a student, the main pattern for high-quality scientific writing is writing clearly and in accordance with journal guidelines. Articles should have a complete structure (from abstract to conclusion), clear methods, data-driven discussion, and use up-to-date references with consistent citations. Furthermore, it’s important to use academic language and maintain the originality of the writing.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) The interview findings and journal guidelines are mostly aligned. Both highlight the importance of clear structure, following the journal template, and focusing on the research topic. They also agree that plagiarism should be low and writing should be clear.b) The sample article reflects good practices from the guidelines. It has a clear introduction, explains the research problem, and uses proper methods such as qualitative design, questionnaires, and interviews. However, from the interview, we learned that not all writers can follow these standards well. Some common problems are wrong format, weak introduction, and unfocused discussion.
c) Some challenges from the interview include long review time, article rejection, and writer’s block. In the journal, these challenges are not directly explained, but they are indirectly addressed through clear structure and guidelines. For example, the journal shows how to write each section properly, such as presenting results clearly and explaining findings in the discussion. This can help writers reduce mistakes and improve their articles. Strategies like staying consistent and using proper references are also important to overcome writing difficulties.
3) Overall, both the interview and journal show similar patterns of high-quality scientific writing. A good article should have clear structure, correct format, low plagiarism, strong introduction, clear abstract, and focused discussion. The difference is that the journal focuses on writing standards, while the interview highlights real challenges in the process. From both sources, it can be concluded that good academic writing requires not only good structure and content, but also consistency, patience, and the ability to handle challenges during writing and publication.
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.ards: The sample article already meets the standards (includes abstract, methods, and data-based discussion). However, the challenges still lie in the consistency of format and the use of references that are sometimes outdated.
c. Challenges & Strategies: The main problem that often arises is the difficulty in following very specific templates. The strategy is for students to read the guidelines more carefully, use the latest references, and must double-check before submission.3. √ Similarities: Both use standard structure (Introduction, Background, Literature Review, and Objectives).
Both use APA style citations and similar data collection methods.
There is a conclusion and acknowledgments section at the end.
× Differences:
• Ijal Journal has stricter and more detailed rules, while Kejar Pendidikan/Cakrawala is a bit more flexible as long as it follows the template.
• Regarding Tables: Some journals request tables to be included in the discussion section, while others request them to be placed at the end after the reference list.
√ Main Pattern
The key to writing a great scientific article is attention to detail. Students must be disciplined in following the template, use up-to-date references, and maintain the originality of their work to keep it credible and systematic.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.I’ve studied it.
2. A. Alignment: Generally, the interview results align with the journal guidelines as both prioritize scientific structure and academic language. The difference lies in the details: the Cakrawala journal is very specific regarding references and titles (maximum 13 words), while the Ijal journal focuses more on citation examples with shorter titles (maximum 12 words).
B. Article Standards: The sample articles have met the standards (including an abstract, methodology, and data-driven discussion). However, the remaining challenges are format consistency and the use of references that are sometimes outdated.
C. Challenges & Strategies: The main issue that often arises is the difficulty of following very specific templates. To handle this, students need to be more meticulous in reading the guidelines, use the latest references, and must double-check everything before submission.3. Similarities
√ Both use a standard structure (Introduction, Research Background, Literature Review, and Objectives).
√ Both utilize APA-style citations and similar data collection methods.
√ Both include a conclusion section and acknowledgments at the end of the article.Differences
× The Ijal journal has stricter and more detailed regulations, while Kejar Pendidikan/Cakrawala is slightly more flexible as long as the template is followed.
× Regarding Tables: One journal requires tables to be integrated within the discussion section, while the other requires them to be placed at the very end after the bibliography.• Main Pattern
The key to writing a high-quality scientific article is attention to detail. Students must be disciplined in following the template, use up-to-date references, and maintain the originality of their work to ensure it remains credible and systematic.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 format1. I have studied the two articles.
2. A). This is in line with the interview’s emphasis on the importance of the Title and Methods at the beginning, and the use of Google Scholar and Mendeley aligns with the journal template’s instructions, which require APA Style 7th Edition format. The 20% plagiarism limit mentioned in the interview is the general standard for publication in SINTA-accredited journals.
B). The sample article (Cakrawala) demonstrates a standard proportion of 20% Introduction, 10% Methods, and 60% Findings. This reflects the interview’s point that students often lack in-depth discussion. The interview stated that the template does not necessarily determine acceptance, but in the IJAL journal sample, following the format (such as Times New Roman 10-12pt font) is standard practice required for professionalism.
C). The challenge is writer’s block and a lack of depth.
The strategy is to read at least 20 references so that writers have a strong foundation for developing ideas and overcoming writer’s block.
3. Similarities: Both emphasize that articles must have a clear methodology so that research can be accounted for and replicated.
The difference is that during interviews, the focus is more on process aspects (citation methods, the author’s mentality), while journal materials focus more on technical output (minimum number of pages 12-15, thousands rule using commas).
Key Characteristics:
– Originality: Has a novelty value (gap) and a low plagiarism rate of 20%.– Suitability: Fits within the journal’s scope and adheres to the journal’s technical regulations.
– Reference Strength: Uses up-to-date literature from reliable sources as the foundation of the argument.
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.How do your interview findings align or differ from the journal guidelines?
answer: The interview findings largely align with the journal guidelines in stressing the importance of a clear research gap, proper structure, and the use of relevant, recent references. However, they differ in focus: the guidelines emphasize formal and technical requirements, while the interview highlights practical experiences such as common mistakes, the need for revision, and challenges in the writing and review process. In short, the guidelines present ideal standards, whereas the interview reflects real practice in academic writing.
b. What practices or standards in the sample articles reflect (or contrast with) what you observed during
interviews?
answer: Sample articles reflect interview findings through clear structure, visible research gaps, and proper use of citations and recent sources. However, they contrast in that published articles are polished and well-organized, while the interviews show that in practice many writers still struggle with methods, clarity, and revisions.
c. Are there any challenges or strategies mentioned in your interviews that are addressed in the materials?
answer: Yes, several challenges and strategies from the interviews are addressed in the materials. Both highlight issues like identifying a clear research gap, using recent references, and organizing the method section properly. The materials provide structured guidelines to handle these, while the interviews add practical strategies such as reading more journals, revising repeatedly, and using tools to support the writing process. This shows that theory and practice complement each other in improving academic writing quality.3.Identify key similarities, differences, and patterns that indicate key characteristics of high-quality
scientific writing?
answer:Key similarities show that high-quality scientific writing requires a clear research gap, a well-organized structure (IMRAD), and the use of relevant, properly cited sources. The main difference is that guidelines focus on technical standards, while interviews highlight practical challenges like unclear methods and the need for revision. Overall, this suggests that good scientific writing depends both on following rules and improving through continuous revision.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.
2. Comparison with Interview Findings
A. My interview results are quite similar to the journal guidelines, because both show that a good article must follow the journal template and use academic language.
B. The sample articles also show clear standards, like dividing each section in a structured way, which is similar to what I found during the interviews.
C. Some challenges from the interviews, such as formatting problems and citation mistakes, are actually explained and guided in the materials.3. Key Characteristics of High-Quality Writing
– Similarities: Both interviews and materials emphasize following the template and using recent, reliable references.
– Differences: The interviews show more personal difficulties, like writer’s block, while the materials focus more on technical rules and structure.
– Patterns: Overall, a high-quality article usually has low plagiarism, clear novelty, and a well-organized structure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.