Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Move 1: Establishing a Territory
• Paragraph 1 = Step 1 (Topic Generalization)
The author introduces critical thinking in general. Evidence: it is explained as a cognitive process (analysis, evaluation, synthesis). (General concept is introduced.)
• Paragraph 2 = Step 1 (Topic Generalization) → Step 2 (Claiming Centrality)
The author explains critical writing and then shows its importance in learning. (Moves from general idea to importance.)
• Paragraph 3 = Step 2 (Claiming Centrality)
The importance of critical thinking and writing is emphasized in education. (The topic is clearly important.)
• Paragraph 4 = Step 2 (Claiming Centrality) → Step 3 (Reviewing Previous Research)
The author highlights importance and supports it with previous studies. (Importance supported by research.)
• Paragraph 5 = Step 3 (Reviewing Previous Research)
The paragraph focuses on previous studies and findings. (Earlier research is discussed.)Move 2: Establishing a Niche
• Paragraph 6 = Step 1A (Indicating a Gap)
The author shows a research gap. Evidence: “Despite the above-mentioned studies…”. (There is still a problem.)
• Paragraph 6 = Step 1B (Adding to What is Known)
The gap is explained further, especially about students’ needs in critical writing. (The gap is clarified.)
• Paragraph 6 = Step 2 (Presenting Justification)
The importance of conducting this study is explained. (The research is needed.)Move 3: Presenting the Present Work
• Paragraph 7 = Step 1 (Announcing Present Research)
The aim is clearly stated. Evidence: “the present study aims to…”. (The purpose is explained.)
• Paragraph 7 = Step 4 (Summarizing Method)
The method is briefly mentioned. Evidence: survey research. (How the study is conducted.)
• Paragraph 7 = Step 6 (Stating the Value of the Research)
The contribution of the study is explained. (The study is useful for teaching and policy.)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.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.-Anggita Dwi Mayani
-Avada Alya S
-Laili Humairoh
-Shifa Aulia R– Process
1. What is the process for publishing an article in a journal? From the initial stage to the final stage.
2. What aspects are usually reviewed first by editors during the desk evaluation stage?
3. In the peer review process, what criteria are reviewers’ primary considerations when assessing the suitability of an article?– Quality
4. What weaknesses are often found in the research methodology of articles that ultimately lead to their rejection?– Challenges
5. What mistakes do novice authors often make when submitting articles to journals?
6. Are differences in templates or author guidelines often the reason for journals’ outright rejection?
7. Based on your experience, what factors often cause articles to fail to be published?– Resources
8. What are the main requirements authors must meet before submitting an article to a journal?
9. If you have the opportunity to offer advice to novice researchers, what should they consider to increase their chances of publication?– Structure and content
10. What indicators are used to determine whether an article does not fit the journal’s scope?1. The topic of the article I read was about gamification in learning, and the title was “Student’s Perspective on the Use of Gamification in Improving English Vocabulary.” I read this article three weeks ago through Google Scholar.
2. This article was quite impressive because it addressed students’ interests and was easy to understand. However, it was also quite challenging because it was quite complex.
3. In my opinion, the most difficult section was the Methodology, as this section is key to the entire discussion in the article. In this section, the author explains in detail the research design, data collection techniques, and analysis used. The complexity of the terms and the use of technical language often made it difficult for me to fully understand the meaning.
4. Reading journal articles helped me understand how academic writing is structured systematically, from introduction to conclusion. Furthermore, I also learned how to use formal language and a writing style that conforms to academic principles.