Worksheet 2.2 Comparing Interview Insights with Journal Guidelines

[Hana]

1. I have reviewed the material carefully
2.compare the content with the insight gained from the interview :
a.bsed on my understanding the interview results are generally in line with the journal guidelines that most of the points discussed such as the importance of structure, rreferences, and clarity r also emphasized in the guideline

b.from the interview it seems that in practice, writing scientific articles does not always fully follow the ideal standards shown in the guidelines some part may still be incomplete or less detailed compared to what is required in formal journal writing

c. the difficulty I found is that beginners often make mistakes that can affect the success of publishing their articles and to deal with this it is important to carefully check the writing, including the structure, language use, similarity issues, and whether the content matches the title

3.identify key similarities,differences and patterns
similarities:-both the interview and the guidelines show the use of academic language and a structured format in writing scientific articles.
differences: -some articles may still lack strong supporting references, which makes the ideas less convincing compared to the standard expected in the guidelines.
pattern:-a clear connection between the title,content, method, and references is very important all parts should be consistent and properly linked to produce a good scientific articlee

[Asri]

1. I have studied both articles.
2. a. Based on interview at the time, the information is very consistent with journal guidelines, as both emphasize the importance of a clear scientific structure and the use of academic language in scientific writing to convince readers. Interviews with authors should also be followed throughout to ensure more accurate writing and accelerate publication efforts.
b. Both journals reflect good scientific writing standards and comply with regulations, such as the presence of abstracts, detailed and accurate explanations of methods, and data-based discussions. These aspects align with what I found during my interviews. However, I still found some differences. For example, the formatting and writing styles of each journal differ, and some articles did not use new references. This indicates that writing always has specific requirements.
c. Challenges in Writing: The interview also discussed challenges encountered in compiling articles. For example, the detailed formatting process requires authors to meticulously follow journal templates. Another challenge was finding references, as they must align with the credits and authenticity of the writing to ensure relevance to the research. Furthermore, authors need to critically and thoroughly check for grammar, citations, and plagiarism (no more than 20%) before submitting an article for publication.
3. Similarities: Both journals use a nearly identical scientific structure, employ APA citation style, and focus on clear, systematic, and well-structured content. Differences: IJAL provides more precise and detailed guidelines. Cakrawala Pendidikan is more flexible, although it still requires authors to follow a predetermined template.
Main Pattern:
The main pattern of high-quality scientific writing is a high level of understanding of journal writing guidelines. A good article should have a complete structure, from beginning to end, including an abstract and conclusion, a detailed and systematic explanation of the method, a data-based discussion, up-to-date references, a consistent, unchanging context, and academic language. Furthermore, we must maintain the originality of the writing to ensure the article is worthy of publication.

[Alya]

1. I have studied it.

2. a. There is alignment in the Abstract section, where the abstract must include the research objectives, research methods, results, and research novelty. The abstract reflects the entire content of the article. Then, the number of words in the article is no more than 7000 words.

b. The standards reflected in both articles are following a structured journal format and the appropriate journal template to avoid rejection.

c. One of the challenges in writing scientific articles is plagiarism. The strategy to overcome this is to paraphrase and use relevant references appropriately.

3. Key Similarities
• The abstract should contain the research objectives, methods, results, and novelty.
• The keywords should be related to the title.

Differences
• In the research methods section, the journal template explains how to write the method, while the interview results section explains how to choose a method that is appropriate for the article.

Patterns
• The article must be clear and focused. The research objectives must align with the results, and the article must not deviate from its focus.

[Avada]

2. a). Based on the comparison between the interview results and the journal guidelines and sample articles, it can be seen that it was closely related even though they come from different perspectives. From the similarity side, in the interview highlights the importance of following standards such as using recent references, having a clear structure, and avoiding plagiarism. This is in line with the journal guidelines, which explain in detail about the format, structure, and the requirement to use relevant and up-to-date sources. However, the difference is in the focus. The interview talks more about real experiences, such as dealing with revisions, facing rejection from reviewers, and having confidence as a writer, while the guidelines are more technical and formal as rules to follow.
b). When I look at the sample articles, many practices reflect what was mentioned in the interview. For example, the articles have a clear structure (from abstract to references), use mostly recent journal sources, and write abstracts that include the purpose, method, and results. This shows that the ideas from the interview are actually applied in real writing. However, some strategies from the interview, like using tools for citation or handling revisions, are not clearly written in the guidelines or directly visible in the articles, which shows a difference between theory and practice.
c). Some challenges mentioned in the interview, such as article rejection, plagiarism limits (around 20%), and the long publication process, are actually related to what is explained in the guidelines. The guidelines include rules about originality, ethics, and the review process, even though they do not explain the writer’s personal struggles. So, in a way, the guidelines already cover these challenges indirectly.

3. Overall, it can be concluded that good scientific writing has several important characteristics. It should have a clear structure, follow journal standards, use relevant and recent references, and present ideas in a logical way. Besides that, writers also need to be ready to face revisions and feedback from reviewers. The pattern I can see is that the guidelines give the rules, the sample articles show the real example, and the interview adds practical experience. All of them together help us understand scientific writing more completely.

[Sintya]

1. Yes, I have studied it.

2. A. My findings regarding the importance of determining the title, method, and research subjects at the beginning of the writing process are clearly aligned with the journal guidelines, which prioritize these elements as core components of the template. I also identified a universal structural pattern that is reflected in the standard chapter divisions of the document, ranging from the abstract to the discussion section. However, I found a slight divergence in perspective; while my interview results suggested that the template does not strictly determine acceptance, the Jurnal Cakrawala guidelines establish very detailed technical rules, indicating that formal formatting compliance remains a crucial initial administrative standard for an article.

B. The practices I observed in this sample article reflect my interview points concerning the importance of presenting a research gap, as the introduction explicitly requires an explanation of the disparity between ideals and reality. The citation standards I gathered from the interviews are also reflected in the mandatory use of Mendeley and the APA 7th Edition style to ensure that references from Google Scholar are properly documented. Furthermore, I noted that the demand for depth of material, which frequently emerged in my interviews, is technically implemented through content distribution rules, where the findings and discussion section must comprise at least 60% of the entire article.

C. I identified that the challenge of lacking depth in analyzing a topic is addressed by the template’s strategy of requiring a large discussion portion, which encourages the writer to be more critical in data analysis. The strategy I obtained regarding the use of Google Scholar proved crucial for meeting the template’s requirements of providing relevant and recent literature to strengthen the research foundation. Additionally, I feel that the psychological challenge of a lack of confidence can be overcome through the strategy of following the systematic structure provided in this template, which helps me transform the demanding writing process into more manageable and directed technical steps.

3. A. Similarities: Purposeful Structure I found that quality is rooted in structural consistency and a clearly defined research gap. Both my interviews and the template confirm that a high-quality article must follow a logical flow and justify its importance by addressing a specific void in existing knowledge.

B. Differences: Substance vs. Format A key difference lies in technical compliance. While my interviews emphasized that substance and depth are the ultimate priorities for acceptance, the template proves that strict adherence to formatting is a mandatory “gatekeeper” required to even reach the review stage.

C. Patterns: Analytical Depth I identified a consistent pattern where quality is measured by analytical mastery rather than raw data, evidenced by the requirement for a 60% discussion section. Furthermore, the reliance on tools like Mendeley and Google Scholar shows that traceable, credible sourcing is a universal hallmark of excellence.

[Daffa]

2. a. Overall, my findings regarding the interview guidelines are consistent. The recommended guidelines, as exemplified by Ijal, share several similarities, starting with their structure (title, abstract, introduction, methods, findings, discussion, conclusion, and references).

b. Based on the interviews I observed, the standard requirements for the various sample articles are largely the same: a clear statement of the problem, the use of APA style for references, a consistent writing structure, and compliance with other relevant guidelines.

c. One of the challenges discussed during the interview and in the materials is that at least 80 percent of the reference articles must have been published within the last five years. This is because, for some topics, it may be necessary to seek out more in-depth references due to the publication year restrictions.

3. Similarities : All of these guidelines share certain common features, one of which is a clear and systematic structure (IMRAD).
Differences : Ijal guideline analysis is more in-depth and critical, whereas other samples are typically more descriptive (though not always).
Pattern : Overall the high quality of artcle usually has clear research focus and consisten.

[Keysha]

1.Yes, I have studied it.

2.a. From what I understand, the interview results are generally similar to the journal guidelines. Both explain that a scientific article needs a clear structure like introduction, method, results, and discussion. They also agree on the importance of valid data, correct citations, and using academic language.
The difference is that the interviews focus more on real situations, such as the need for multiple revisions, waiting for reviewer feedback, and problems with time management. On the other hand, journal guidelines focus more on technical requirements like format, word limits, and templates.

b. The sample articles show that good scientific writing should be clear, direct, and well-organized. The titles are simple, the abstracts are straight to the point, and the discussions are structured clearly. This supports what we found in the interviews about the importance of clarity and systematic writing.
However, the difference is that published articles look more perfect and organized, while in reality, many writers still face difficulties during the writing process, especially in organizing ideas and writing clearly.

c. Yes, there are some connections. For example, problems with citations are addressed in the guidelines through clear rules and the use of tools like reference managers. Difficulties in explaining data can be solved by using tables or figures. Also, issues with article length can be managed by following the recommended structure for each section.

3. Identify key similarities, differences, and patterns

The similarities show that good scientific writing requires a clear structure, valid data, proper citations, and the use of academic language. The differences are that journal guidelines focus more on rules and standards, while interviews show real challenges like revisions, time pressure, and writing difficulties. Sample articles represent the final result after all revisions.
The pattern shows that writing a high-quality scientific article is not only about following the rules, but also about practicing, revising, and improving the writing continuously.

[Andina]

1. Yes, I have studied it.

2. a. The sample articles reflect the standards from the journal guidelines, such as a clear structure, concise abstract, and logical discussion. This is consistent with the interview findings that emphasize clarity and systematic writing.

b. However, the interviews also show that not all writers can easily meet these standards. Common problems include weak introductions, incorrect formatting, and unfocused discussions. This means the sample articles represent the ideal result, while the interviews reveal the challenges behind the process.

3. Some challenges mentioned in the interviews are addressed in the journal materials, such as citation issues (supported by rules and tools), presenting data (through tables and figures), and managing article length (through section proportions). However, challenges like rejection, long review time, and writer’s block are not directly explained in the guidelines. These can be handled by following the template, writing systematically, and staying consistent.

4. Similarities:

– Clear structure
– Academic language
– Valid data & references
– Proper citation

Differences:

– Guidelines = technical rules
– Interviews = real experiences
Sample articles = final product

Patterns:
– High-quality scientific writing requires
– clear ideas, strong methods, structured writing, and continuous revision.

[Devita]

1. Alignment and Differences
Alignment: Both the interview findings and journal guidelines prioritize originality and a clear contribution to the field. Technical precision, such as adhering to citation styles and word counts, is emphasized in both sources as a primary requirement for submission.
Difference: Journal guidelines typically focus on structural and technical checklists (e.g., margins, abstract length, and ethical statements). In contrast, interview insights provide practical nuances, such as the strategic importance of the Discussion section or how to manage reviewer feedback.
2. Reflections and Contrasts in Sample Articles
Reflection: Sample articles demonstrate a high citation density and a strong theoretical foundation, reflecting the expert’s advice on the necessity of a robust literature review. The use of formal academic language in samples directly matches the standards mentioned during the interview.
Contrast: While interviewees may encourage innovative or “bold” methodologies, sample articles often show a preference for established research designs to ensure alignment with standard journal conventions and minimize the risk of rejection.

[Dina]

1. I’ve studied it.

2. a) In general, the interview findings are consistent with the journal guidelines. Both emphasize the importance of having a well-organized structure, following journal requirements, and maintaining focus on the research topic. They also emphasize the need for clear writing and avoiding plagiarism.
The difference is that the interview findings describe more real-life experiences and difficulties, while the journal guidelines primarily focus on formal rules, such as formatting, structure, and referencing style.

b) The sample articles demonstrate how the guidelines are applied in practice. The articles present a structured introduction, clearly explain the research problem, and use appropriate methods such as qualitative design, questionnaires, and interviews.
However, based on the interviews, many authors still struggle to meet these standards. Some common problems include incorrect formatting, unclear introductions, and a lack of focus in the discussion. This suggests that published articles represent the expected standard, but achieving it is not always easy.

c) The interviews highlighted several challenges, such as lengthy review processes, rejections, and writer’s block. These issues are not directly addressed in the journal guidelines, but they do provide indirect solutions by providing clear instructions for each section.
For example, they guide authors on how to present results and discuss findings effectively. To overcome difficulties, authors can employ strategies such as consistency, careful adherence to guidelines, and the use of reliable sources like Google Scholar.

3. Both the interviews and journal materials demonstrate similar characteristics of a good scientific article. A high-quality article should include a clear structure, proper formatting, minimal plagiarism, a strong introduction, a concise abstract, and a well-focused discussion.
Overall, it can be concluded that writing a good scientific article requires not only an understanding of structure and content, but also consistency, persistence, and the ability to overcome challenges throughout the writing and publication process.

[Fadhil Akbar]

1. i’ve studied it.
2. a. Based on the interview results, this is in line with the guidelines because the article structure is well-organized and uses appropriate academic language.

b. Both journals demonstrate scientific writing standards, such as including abstracts, clearly described research methods, and discussions supported by data. However, there are still some inconsistencies, particularly in formatting and the use of references that are not always up-to-date.

c. Several challenges identified in the interviews are also reflected in the journals. These include dealing with detailed formatting requirements by following journal templates, selecting recent and relevant references, and carefully reviewing the article before submission.

3.
• Similarities: Both journals apply a standard scientific structure, use APA citation style, and emphasize clarity and systematic presentation of research.

• Differences: The Ijal journal tends to be more detailed and specific, whereas the Kejar Pendidikan journal is relatively more flexible, although it still follows general template guidelines.

• Main pattern: From a student’s perspective, high-quality scientific writing requires clarity and adherence to journal guidelines. An article should include a complete structure (from abstract to conclusion), present clear methodology, provide data-based discussion, and use recent references with consistent citation style. In addition, maintaining academic language and ensuring originality are essential.

[Sania]

Name: Sania Buchori M
Student ID: 24220069

1. I have studied it
2. a. Highly aligned in terms of standardization. While the interview results emphasized “accuracy,” the guidelines in the material provided specific technical rules, such as 2.54 cm margins and a 5,000–7,000 word limit. b. The sample article reflects the credibility standards frequently mentioned during the interview. This is evidenced by the mandatory rule: at least 80% of the references must be from reputable journals within the last 5 years. c. Challenges & Strategies The challenges faced by writers who often struggle with structuring (as seen in the interviews) are addressed by the material with the strategy of using the Journal Template and Submission Checklist to make writing more systematic and focused.
3. The similarities are that all quality manuscripts must be objective, evidence-based, and must follow the IMRaD standard structure (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion). The differences are that good writing is seen from proportionality. The Findings & Discussion section must be dominant (40-60%), while the Introduction is sufficient at 15-20%. The pattern is that a minimum of 80% of references come from reputable journals in the last 5 years, consistent in format (font, margins, spacing) and comply with the word limit (5,000–7,000 words), the content of the writing must be completely aligned with the guidelines and templates provided by the journal.

[Nisrina]

1. sudah saya pelajari

2. A) Selama wawancara, informan mengatakan bahwa struktur utama dari artikel ditentukan oleh penelitian yang dikumpulkan. Mereka menempatkan artikel ke dalam target jurnal dengan mengatur penelitian agar sesuai dengan struktur jurnal target. Ini kemungkinan berarti bahwa komponen utama dari penyelidikan adalah abstrak, pendahuluan, metodologi, hasil, dan diskusi. Berdasarkan wawancara, proses tinjauan sejawat juga berperan penting dalam kualitas artikel yang diterbitkan. Informan mengatakan bahwa sebagian besar peninjau jurnal akan memberikan kritik terhadap kualitas dan kelengkapan argumen, metodologi, dan kualitas penelitian.
B) Praktik dan standar yang terdapat dalam artikel sampel mencerminkan pengamatan saya selama wawancara. Artikel-artikel tersebut menunjukkan penerapan struktur akademik yang terorganisir dengan baik , termasuk adanya bagian abstrak, pendahuluan, metode, dan hasil . Hal ini sejalan dengan hasil wawancara, di mana narasumber menjelaskan bahwa peneliti perlu mematuhi format yang ditetapkan . Di sisi lain , artikel contoh menggunakan sumber referensi yang relevan dan dapat dipercaya untuk mendukung argumen penelitian. Dalam wawancara tersebut, diungkapkan bahwa pentingnya penggunaan sumber ilmiah yang sah sangat memengaruhi kredibilitas dan validitas penelitian. Praktik pengamatan sejawat yang disebutkan oleh narasumber juga terlihat dalam kualitas bahasa serta cara penyajian artikel .
C) Tentu , ada beberapa tantangan dan strategi yang dibahas dalam materi terkait wawancara . Tantangan utama meliputi keterbatasan waktu, melakukan revisi berulang-ulang, serta menyesuaikan format jurnal . Selain itu , terdapat juga strategi yang konsisten baik dalam wawancara maupun materi tersebut .

3.Persamaan (Karakteristik Dasar/Fundamental)Semua penulisan ilmiah berkualitas tinggi berbagi fondasi yang sama, yaitu:

Objektif & Faktual: Berbasis pada data, fakta, dan bukti empiris, bukan pendapat pribadi atau emosi penulis.

Logis & Sistematis: Mengikuti urutan berpikir yang rasional, terstruktur (biasanya IMRAD: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion), dan konsisten.

Bahasa Baku & Lugas: Menggunakan bahasa formal, teknis/jargon keilmuan, efektif, dan tidak ambigu.

Reproduktif & Dapat Diuji: Metodologi ditulis secara rinci agar peneliti lain dapat mengulangi penelitian dan mendapatkan hasil yang sama.

Sitasi Kredibel: Menggunakan referensi terkini dan relevan dari jurnal bereputasi.

2. Perbedaan (Penanda Kualitas Tinggi vs. Standar)Perbedaan utama terletak pada kedalaman, orisinalitas, dan ketajaman analisis:

Kebaruan (Novelty): Memberikan kontribusi baru, mengisi kesenjangan penelitian, atau teori baru.Mengulang penelitian terdahulu tanpa kebaruan signifikan.

Analisis (Discussion): mendalam, kritis, menghubungkan hasil dengan teori, dan membahas implikasi global.Hanya mendeskripsikan data hasil penelitian.

Metodologi: sangat detail, valid, dan canggih/sesuai standar industri.Cukup detail, tapi kurang kuat dalam pembenaran metode.

Literatur: Menggunakan referensi jurnal internasional/nasional bereputasi (5-10 tahun terakhir).Referensi lama atau kurang relevan.

Proses Review: Melewati peer-review ketat (double blind/open).Review kurang ketat atau tidak ada.

3. Pola Utama (Karakteristik Penting)Pola yang menunjukkan kualitas tinggi sering kali terlihat dari:

Struktur IMRAD yang jelas: Introduction (masalah & gap), Methods (bagaimana), Results (apa temuannya), and Discussion (apa maknanya).

Fokus pada Research Gap: Artikel menonjolkan apa yang belum diketahui dan bagaimana tulisan ini mengisinya.

Visualisasi Data Profesional: Penggunaan grafik, tabel, atau gambar yang efisien dan berkualitas tinggi untuk mendukung temuan.

Judul & Abstrak yang Informatif: Singkat, padat, dan mengandung kata kunci utama penelitian.

Academic Voice: Penulis menunjukkan posisi sebagai peneliti yang mandiri dan berkarakter (menghindari kutipan berlebihan tanpa analisis mandiri).

[Author]

Posts