Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Move 1 : Establishing a Territory (Paragraph 1 – 5)
These paragraphs clearly define key concepts (critical thinking and critical writing), explain their importance in education, and support the discussion with relevant studies, which helps build a strong research background.Move 2 : Establishing a Niche (Paragraph 6)
– Step 1A : Indicating a gap (1st sentence)
The first sentence explicitly states that research on critical writing needs in EFL contexts is still limited.
– Step 1B : Adding to what is known (2nd and 3rd sentence)
The next sentences explain why investigating students’ needs is important and what insights such research can provide.
– Step 2 : Presenting positive justification (4th – 9th sentence)
The remaining sentences justify the study by emphasizing its benefits for improving teaching strategies, student outcomes, and educational equity.Move 3 : Presenting the Present Work (Paragraph 7)
– Step 1 : Announcing present research purposively (1st sentence)
The first sentence clearly states the aim of the study.
– Step 4 : Summarizing method (2nd sentence)
The second sentence briefly explains that survey research is used.
– Step 5 : Announcing Principles Outcomes (3rd sentence)
The third sentence indicates expected findings in terms of insights for teaching practices.
– Step 6 : Stating the value of the present research (4th sentence)
The final sentence highlights the broader impact of the study on policy and educational improvement.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.
1. In my opinion, writing a scientific article is a structured but repeated process that takes time and patience. It usually starts from choosing a topic, reviewing literature, doing research, and then continuing with writing and revising the paper. I also see that the submission process is not simple because authors need to follow specific journal guidelines.
2. From my understanding, a high-quality scientific article should be clear, well-organized, and supported by strong data. The ideas need to be presented logically, and the use of academic language is very important. However, I think many authors face difficulties in organizing their ideas and using proper academic English. Responding to reviewers’ feedback can also be challenging, especially when the comments are critical. When I compare this with other groups, I see the same pattern where clarity and strong methodology are always important, while language issues and dealing with feedback are the most common challenges.
3. Based on my experience during the interview, authors need good writing skills, but guidance from supervisors and peers is also very helpful. Access to academic resources is another important factor. I also notice that most respondents use the IMRaD structure to organize their writing. Similar to other groups, I find that mentorship and collaboration play a big role in improving the quality of the article, along with the use of digital tools like reference managers and grammar checkers.
Group Members :
1. Anggita Dwi Mayani
2. Avada Alya S. N.
3. Laili Humairoh
4. Shifa Aulia R.– Process
1. Bagaimana alur proses dalam publikasi artikel dalam jurnal? dari tahap awal sampai akhir
2. aspek apa yang biasanya pertama kali diperiksa oleh editor pada tahap desk evaluation?
3. dalam proses peer review, kriteria apa saja yang menjadi pertimbangan utama peninjau dalam menilai kelayakan artikel?– Quality
1. seberapa besar pengaruh tingkat kesamaan atau indikasi plagiat dalam keputusan penolakan artikel?
2. kelemahan apa yang sering ditemukan pada metodologi penelitan artikel yang akhirnya di tolak?
3. seberapa penting unsur kebaruan dan kontribusi ilmiah dalam menentukan artikel layak dipublikasikan atau tidak?– Challenges
1. kesalahan apa yang sering dilakukan penulis pemula ketika mengirimkan artikel ke jurnal?
2. apakah perbedaan dalam template atau panduan penulis sering menjadi alasan jurnal langsung ditolak?
3. berdasarkan pengalaman ibu, faktor apa yang sering menyebabkan artikel gagal publis?– Resource
1. Apa persyaratan utama yang harus di penuhi penulis sebelum mengirimkan artikel ke jurnal?
2. jika ibu berkesempatan memberikan saran bagi para peneliti pemula, apa yang harus diperhatikan agar peluang publikasi menjadi lebih besar?
3. Bagaimana cara memilih jurnal yang tepat berdasarkan scope dan indexing yang tersedia?– Structure and content
1. Seberapa penting kesesuaian topik artikel dan scope jurnal dalam proses seleksi awal?
2. Apa saja indikator yang digunakan untuk menentukan bahwa suatu artikel tidak sesuai dengan scope jurnal?
3. Bagaimana strategi yang dapat dilakukan penulis untuk menyesuaikan isi artikel dengan scope jurnal yang dituju?Group Members :
1. Anggita Dwi Mayani
2. Avada Alya S. N.
3. Laili Humairoh
4. Shifa Aulia R.– *Process*
1. Bagaimana alur proses dalam publikasi artikel dalam jurnal? dari tahap awal sampai akhir
2. aspek apa yang biasanya pertama kali diperiksa oleh editor pada tahap desk evaluation?
3. dalam proses peer review, kriteria apa saja yang menjadi pertimbangan utama peninjau dalam menilai kelayakan artikel?– *Quality*
1. seberapa besar pengaruh tingkat kesamaan atau indikasi plagiat dalam keputusan penolakan artikel
2. kelemahan apa yang sering ditemukan pada metodologi penelitan artikel yang akhirnya di tolak?
3. seberapa penting unsur kebaruan dan kontribusi ilmiah dalam menentukan artikel layak dipublikasikan atau tidak?– *Challenges*
1. kesalahan apa yang sering dilakukan penulis pemula ketika mengirimkan artikel ke jurnal?
2. apakah perbedaan dalam template atau panduan penulis sering menjadi alasan jurnal langsung ditolak?
3. berdasarkan pengalaman bapak ibu, faktor apa yang sering menyebabkan artikel gagal publis?– *Resource*
1. Apa persyaratan utama yang harus di penuhi penulis sebelum mengirimkan artikel ke jurnal?
2. jika bapak ibu berkesempatan memberikan saran bagi para peneliti pemula, apa yang harus diperhatikan agar peluang publikasi menjadi lebih besar?
3. Bagaimana cara memilih jurnal yang tepat berdasarkan scope dan indexing yang tersedia?– *Structure and content*
1. Seberapa penting kesesuaian topik artikel dan scope jurnal dalam proses seleksi awal?
2. Apa saja indikator yang digunakan untuk menentukan bahwa suatu artikel tidak sesuai dengan scope jurnal?
3. Bagaimana strategi yang dapat dilakukan penulis untuk menyesuaikan isi artikel dengan scope jurnal yang dituju?1. the topic is about Perceptions of Collaborative Video Projects in the Language Classroom. I read it last week in the classroom. I found it in Googe Scholar, it is free so i can access it. The first time i read it, it feels confuse because i barely read articles. Also, i always get distracted when i read the articles.
2. In my opinion, what made the experience a bit challenging is the language and the structure of the article. The sentences are quite formal and sometimes too long, so it takes more time to understand the meaning. Besides that, the article has many sections like introduction, methodology, and discussion, which makes it feel complicated for me as a beginner. However, the topic itself is actually interesting because it talks about collaborative video projects, which are related to modern learning.
3. The part that I usually find the most difficult to understand is the methodology section. This is because it explains the research design, participants, and data analysis in a very technical way. Sometimes, there are terms that I am not familiar with, so I need to read it more than once to really understand it.
4. In my opinion, reading journal articles can help improve my academic writing skills because I can learn how to organize ideas in a structured way. I also learn new vocabulary and formal expressions that are commonly used in academic writing. In addition, I can see how the writers support their arguments with evidence, so it helps me understand how to write a good and logical academic paper.