Bagaimana memulai??? How!? Jurnal apa??? Bagaimana prosesnya?? Apakah riset saya layak??? Dll

Dr Hanny Nasution

 Bagaimana memulai???

How!?

 Jurnal apa???  Bagaimana prosesnya??  Apakah riset saya

layak???  Dll

18/06/2011

Forum Diskusi KAGAMA

2

Outline 1. Penentuan jurnal

2. Pemilihan topik 3. Persiapan penulisan artikel 4. Proses pengajuan dan

penilaian 5. Revisi dan pengajuan

kembali 18/06/2011


3

1. Penentuan Jurnal  Tujuan dan Pendekatan:  Mendapatkan masukan dari penilai => Jurnal kelas atas  Peluang dipublikasi lebih besar => Jurnal kelas menengah/bawah

 Peringkat Jurnal:  A*, A, B, C, not-ranked (ERA – Excellence in Research for Australia)  Analisa jurnal:  Analisa jurnal 5 tahun terakhir: tema utama, metodologi, dll.  Pendekatan kuantitatif atau kualitatif  Ruang lingkup dan konteks jurnal 18/06/2011


4

2. Pemilihan Topik Tahap Konseptualisasi  Identifikasi kesenjangan dalam teori

 Menutup kesenjangan  Identifikasi pentingnya menutup kesenjangan bagi perkembangan

ilmu  Kontribusi bagi perkembangan ilmu dan teori  Membangun konseptual model  Mengajukan proposisi/hipotesa

Hal yang penting dalam menulis artikel •

Identifkasi kontribusi bagi perkembangan ilmu, bagi praktisi, dan pembuat keputusan

18/06/2011


5

3. Persiapan Penulisan Artikel Memposisikan Artikel  Latar belakang  Formulasi pertanyaan penelitian  Formulasi tujuan  Identifkasi hal-hal yang diargumentasi sebagai hal baru  Eksplisit tentang apakah kontribusi mirip dengan publikasi yang ada  Eksplisit tentang apakah kontribusi beda dengan publikasi yang ada 18/06/2011


6

3. Persiapan Penulisan Artikel – Lanjutan  Judul:  Menarik, mempunyai tujuan yang jelas, tidak terlalu panjang  Abstrak:  Sajikan ringkasan singkat: tujuan, metode, hasil, dan

kontribusi

 Artikel yang baik:  Tujuan jelas, kajian teori terarah, struktur jelas:

metodologi, hasil, diskusi, konklusi, kelemahan, arahan penelitian mendatang

18/06/2011


7

4. Proses Pengajuan & Penilaian  Sebelum pengajuan – kesan pertama sangat

berpengaruh

 Artikel – tampilan terstruktur (mengikuti

guidelines)

 Surat pengantar – formulasikan pentingnya artikel

 Proses Pengajuan  Pengajuan online => Chief Editor  Seleksi awal => Tolak => Kembali ke penulis  Penilai => blind review  Chief Executive => Rekomendasi  Penulis

18/06/2011


8

4. Proses Pengajuan & Penilaian  Proses Penilaian

 Dua atau tiga penilai tertutup (blind

reviewer)

 Seleksi penilai berdasarkan bidang

keahlian  Lingkup waktu:  

18/06/2011

6-8 minggu untuk proses penilaian 2-3 tahun sampai dengan publikasi Forum Diskusi KAGAMA

9

4. Proses Pengajuan & Penilaian - Lanjutan Rekomendasi:  Diterima  Diterima dengan revisi minor  Diterima dengan revisi major

 Ditolak

18/06/2011


10

4. Proses Pengajuan & Penilaian - Lanjutan Ditolak

- Tanggapan atas penilaian

 Tanggapi semua komentar dari penilai

 Kemukan argumentasi dengan bukti ilmiah  Kesantunan dalam korespodensi dan lakukan semua usulan,

kecuali:

 Tidak memungkinkan secara teoritis

 Membutuhkan waktu yang lama

 Hindari sikap merasa diserang  Jangan ajukan kembali sebelum dilakukan perubahan sesuai

masukan penilai  Ajukan kembali ke jurnal lainnya yang peringkatnya yang lebih rendah => ada kemungkinkan dinilai oleh penilai yang sama => harus dilakukan revisi 18/06/2011


11

4. Prooses Pengajuan & Penilaian – lanjutan Tanggapan terhadap kritik  Diluar lingkup, misi, atau tujuan jurnal 

Pengajuan ulang ke jurnal lain

 Tidak ada kontribusi  

Mengembangkan kontribusi Nyatakan secara jelas apa yang baru dari artikel yang diajukan

 Topiknya tidak menarik dan tidak penting 



18/06/2011

Identifikasi siapa yang akan tertarik Argumentasi pentingnya artikel Forum Diskusi KAGAMA

12

5. Revisi & Pengajuan Ulang Alasan penolakan artikel:  Tulisan tidak terstruktur dan tidak memenuhi standar

 Isi tidak mengarah ke judul artikel  Tidak ada kontribusi terhadap perkembangan ilmu  Tidak mempunyai nilai teoritis dan praktis  Penilitian replikasi => tidak ada yang baru  Tidak mengkaji artikel-artikel kunci  Metodologi lemah  Data analisis tidak tepat  Salah menginterpretasikan hasil dan kesimpulan 18/06/2011


13

Contoh: Artikel Ditolak - JAMS 2009 Reviewer #4: Reviewer Comments Ms 08-00344 Assessing fit as coalignment and profile deviation This paper provides a reasonably good review of the configuration theory literature, and correctly suggests that it may have applicability in the consumer research setting. Unfortunately, this study does not advance this agenda, for several reasons detailed below. First, the attributes utilized are all vector (as opposed to ideal point) attributes. More is better, such that some measure of similarity to a given configuration or set of ideal points is irrelevant. An "ideal point" derived from the scores of the top 5% of the hotels under study is an illustration of this point. Higher is better for all of the attributes. The model depicted in Figure 2, and its 'superiority' to the direct effects model in Figure 3 are both due to the high intercorrelation among the attributes. This 'halo' or strong general factor underlying the attributes is very common in studies like this, but it cannot properly be labeled 'coalignment'. It is nothing more than a general second order factor accounting for the intercorrelations among the first order factors. Since the first order factors are strongly correlated, there is a high level of multicollinearity in the direct effect model, and finding sign reversals and inflated standard error estimates (and thus lack of significance for the associated parameter estimates) are classic symptoms. Taking the top "x%" as representing an 'ideal point' is similarly misguided. The ideal point for a vector variable is simply the top possible score. Further, the use of deviation scores (squared or not) has been severely criticized by Edwards in several articles (cited below) even though in this case it largely amounts to subtracting a constant. Other points: I can't figure out the reported degree of freedom difference between the direct effect model and the "configuration" model. Why four? Also, respondents are nested within hotels, violating the independent observations assumption. This sampling effect should be accounted for. Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 264-286. Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307-324. 18/06/2011


14

Contoh: Artikel Diterima-IMM 2011 Reviewer 1

Comments to the Authors: This paper suggests a solid and extensive knowledge of the literature on market orientation as well as entrepreneurship, innovation, learning orientation and HRM practices. It is also well structured and underpinned by a good level of analysis. Its overall impact might gain from the following improvement suggestions: Make greater attempt to relate the paper, particularly the introductory and concluding sections, to the focus of the special issue, i.e. strengthen its fit with the Special Issue and bring out more of the managerial implications. Include a paragraph or two on the profile of your study sample – this could help in the above regard Do more to ground the methodology section in the relevant best practice literature; a few references to support or justify such research design decisions as the use of hotels and hotel managers as sampling units, the choice of Indonesia as study location etc. might help  Edit your work more carefully, e.g. leaving out “references” is P20 seems a bit … and “medium-size” should read “medium-sized”. Here are a few more examples from pp1-11:  P2, L2: replace „its‟ with “their”.  P2, last para, L2: Insert “and” before „human‟  P3, L1: Insert „and‟ before „human‟.  P4, second para, L5: insert “to” after „need‟  P7, L1: rephrase “sacrifices have been identified with various interpretations”.  P7, second par, L2: clarify “..customer services a business unit…”  P8, first full para, L10: rephrase “ Despite learning orientation ….”  P8, second para, L1: see spacing problem after „innovation‟.  P9, line 6: rephrase “….higher levels of organizational learning tend to adopt ….”  P10, L3: „in term‟ should read „in terms‟

18/06/2011


15

Contoh: Artikel Diterima-IMM 2011 Reviewer 2

Comments to the authors:

I SET OUT SOME MINOR POINTS THAT THE AUTHOR MAY WISH TO ADDRESS. 1. does the title accurately reflect the content of the paper and the findings of the research? (compare the statement at the bottom of p19 with the title) 2. There is no mention of HRM in the title yet it appears as significant in the findings – there needs to be more explanation of the link between HRM and marketing if the HRM finding is to be regarded as evidence of the impact of marketing orientation on entrepreneurship. 3. the word ,model, is used – should these models be shown diagrammatically even though the reference may imply a conceptual model. This might assist the reader . 4. In some areas of the discussion of hypotheses the literature seems somewhat dated. Is it possible to include some more recent references e.g. H1; H4 and H% discussions. 5. overall a well written and well argued and well supported paper. 18/06/2011


16

Komentar Umum-Isi 1. Latar belakang – perumusan masalah dan tujuan 2. Kontribusi utama:  Dinyatakan secara eksplisit, menarik, mengatasi masalah penting

3. Kajian teoritis:  Artikel terbaru, posisikan artikel 4. Rancangan Penelitian:  sampling, sample size, data collection method, instrument development and validation, and appropriate data analysis techniques 5. Kesimpulan, implikasi, keterbatasan 18/06/2011


17

Komentar Umum - Teknis  Artikel ditulis untuk pembaca tertentu dan penilai

 Pahami tradisi jurnal tersebut.  Pastikan mengutip artikel dengan benar  Manfaat partisipasi dalam konferensi international  Manfaat partisipasi dalam sesi „Jumpa Editor

Jurnal‟

18/06/2011


18

Keputusan Akhir Diterima – 

Rayakan keberhasilan



Peluang untuk diundang menjadi penilai

jurnal (reviewer) atau Board of Editors  18/06/2011

Promosi jabatan, dll Forum Diskusi KAGAMA

19

Kesimpulan Kiat-kiat praktis: 1. Tentukan jurnal sesuai tujuan 2. Topik sesuai dengan tema jurnal 3. Artikel mempunyai kontribusi yang berarti bagi perkembangan ilmu 4. Ikuti standar penulisan jurnal 5. Revisi sesuai hasil penilaian 6. Pengajuan kembali setelah direvisi

18/06/2011


20

Terima Kasih… [email protected] [email protected]

18/06/2011


21

Bagaimana memulai??? How!? Jurnal apa??? Bagaimana prosesnya?? Apakah riset saya layak??? Dll

Recommend Documents