Video summary

Pelatihan Daring Penulisan Artikel Jurnal Terindeks Scopus dan WoS

Main summary

Key takeaways

Educational

Main Ideas / Concepts Conveyed

  • Purpose of the training

    • To equip participants with strategies for writing scientific journal articles that can be accepted and indexed in Scopus and (WoS implied).
    • To explain why articles are often rejected during editorial screening and how to improve them.

  • Context: Society 5.0 (opening lecture theme)

    • Society 5.0 is described as the integration of virtual/digital space and physical space:
      • cyberspace collects/analyzes real-world data,
      • solutions are applied in the physical world,
      • outcomes are fed back to cyberspace for continuous improvement.
    • This supports the training emphasis on sharing information and knowledge, including collaboration across:
      • faculties, universities, countries, even continents.
    • Writers should build networks to enable collaborative research that has impact.

  • Program motivation

    • Scientific publication is framed as a core academic duty (not merely a promotion requirement).
    • Knowledge dissemination is treated as enabling scientific benefit and “charity/jariyah” for researchers.
    • Publishing in Scopus/WoS is emphasized as difficult but achievable through persistence and learning from rejection.

  • How editors/journals screen submissions (core practical lesson)

    • Many rejections are caused by not meeting journal requirements and structural/format issues, even if content is good.
    • Editors must “filter” many submissions (example numbers given), so authors must submit properly formatted, plagiarism-checked, and on-scope manuscripts.

Methodology / Instruction Lists

A) Administrative / Compliance Steps Before Submission

  • Include required documents when submitting:
    • a cover letter,
    • a signed copyright transfer agreement.
  • Do plagiarism checking before submission:
    • use Turnitin or similar tools,
    • aim for a similarity threshold (example mentioned: max ~20%).
  • Avoid plagiarism-related rejection:
    • do not submit work that will be rejected due to high similarity.

B) Submission Strategy When Rejected

  • Treat rejection as feedback, not failure:
    • read editor/reviewer comments,
    • revise accordingly,
    • then resubmit to the same journal or try other suitable journals.
  • Rejection can happen multiple times before acceptance:
    • example given: an article rejected many times (multiple rounds) before eventual acceptance.
  • Send journals one-by-one (not “batching” multiple journals at once):
    • simultaneous submissions can risk blacklisting and ethics violations.
  • Do not give up quickly:
    • acceptance may require repeated revisions and patience (timeframes such as months or up to a year/one and a half years are mentioned).

C) How Editors Reject Manuscripts During Editorial Screening (What to Prevent)

  • Follow the journal template exactly
    • if the manuscript does not follow the template/format, it may be rejected immediately.
  • Ensure the manuscript matches the journal scope
    • examples of mismatch:
      • a journal focused on English language education rejecting unrelated topics,
      • or incorrect topical focus (e.g., linguistics vs education).
  • Meet required diversity/issue considerations (for some journals)
    • editors may queue or rotate manuscripts to maintain diversity in:
      • geography, author backgrounds, and/or topic distribution.
  • Do not depend on translators without language editing quality
    • language quality issues can still lead to rejection after translation.
  • Quality of writing and structure must be clear
    • recurring issue: writing becomes not systematic (poor paragraphing, missing headings/subheadings, etc.).

D) Manuscript Structure Requirements: “Systematic” Writing

  • Ensure the article is systematically organized, such as:
    • use headings/subheadings aligned with topics,
    • avoid “rambling” where sections mix unrelated parts,
    • do not put only one paragraph when more structured content is required.
  • Ensure each main section answers expected content
    • if methods, results, or discussion do not align, rejection can follow.

E) Section-by-Section Guidance (Especially Editor-Focused Tips)

1) Abstract

  • The abstract must be present and meet length rules:
    • example range mentioned: ~200–250 words, with emphasis on limiting preamble.
  • Abstract structure should include:
    • problem statement / objective
    • method / approach (brief)
    • main findings / implications
  • Avoid:
    • overly long preambles,
    • abstract that violates word limits,
    • missing “implications”/contribution.

2) Title

  • Titles must follow each journal’s rules:
    • limit word count (example implied: ~14–15 words in some journals),
    • title words must correspond to actual content.
  • Avoid:
    • titles with terms not reflected in the article content,
    • excessively long titles,
    • mismatch between title and study focus.

3) Introduction / Background → Novelty

  • Introduction should include:
    • sufficient background,
    • why the research is important,
    • what has been done previously,
    • the research gap,
    • and the novelty/achievement (why this study contributes).
  • Novelty can be argued through:
    • originality of dataset/location/context,
    • different instruments/methodological approach,
    • cross-linguistic focus,
    • focusing on a less-studied minority language/context.
  • If the topic is no longer new for some journals:
    • submit to journals where the topic is still considered relevant/novel.

4) Methods (linked to “systematic” emphasis)

  • Make sure instruments and procedures are fully described:
    • if you claim interviews, show interview results context and how data were collected,
    • include instruments (questionnaires, tests, observation protocols, etc.),
    • do not omit “data collection” details even if analysis is explained.

5) Results / Discussion (major pain point)

  • Discussion must:
    • relate results to the research questions/objectives,
    • connect to prior studies (“relate findings” rather than just restating results),
    • elaborate why results matter.
  • Common problems that lead to rejection:
    • discussion too short or incomplete (e.g., only one part, or “half a page” with only a table),
    • missing a clear explanation of how results answer the question,
    • mismatch: methods described but discussion doesn’t address them.

6) Conclusion

  • Keep conclusions consistent with the study purpose:
    • likely around 2–3 paragraphs,
    • includes:
      • answers to research questions,
      • limitations,
      • suggestions for future research.
  • Avoid adding new problems that weren’t discussed earlier.

7) References (Bibliography)

  • Follow the journal’s citation style precisely (APA/7th edition or journal-specific style).
  • Ensure references are:
    • complete (authors, year, title, journal/book details),
    • recent enough when required (example rule mentioned: last 5–10 years),
    • links and DOIs (if required) are valid.
  • Avoid:
    • broken links,
    • outdated theory when newer sources are expected,
    • citing unreliable sources like Wikipedia/blogs as primary references.
  • Reference verification tools:
    • use Mendeley to reduce author/name errors, but manually check.

Building Long-Term Productivity

  • Workflow mindset
    • read journals, identify suitable journals, study templates,
    • write, revise, resubmit—iterate.
  • Time management and persistence
    • dedicate protected time (example: once a week) to reading/searching and writing,
    • for lecturers/mothers with heavy schedules, allocate time accordingly and follow schedules.
  • Collaboration
    • collaborate with students (examples included of student-assisted data collection and writing).

Event Structure / Flow (as Presented in Subtitles)

  • Opening
    • greetings, ceremonial opening items (songs/rituals).
  • Formal welcome speeches and program rationale
    • deputy director and vice chancellor/academic affairs remarks,
    • emphasis on scientific publication for dissemination and advancement.
  • Prayer session and group photo
  • Main material delivery
    • main speaker: Prof. Dr. Yunisrina Kismullah Yusuf (resource person),
    • shares editor/reviewer perspective and detailed submission criteria.
  • Q&A session
    • participants ask about:
      • where to find references with limited campus access,
      • how to write literature review (theoretical framework and placement),
      • recommendations for Scopus-indexed journals accepting Indonesian authors,
      • guidance on novelty and structuring content.
  • Closing
    • thanks to speakers and committee; participants encouraged to keep trying.

Speakers / Sources Featured

Individuals (people speaking or explicitly referenced)

  • Mr. Rofiq (host/moderator role referenced early)
  • Prof. Agung Nugroho, STP, MSc, PhD (Deputy Director for Academic Affairs / UGM representative)
  • Dr. Muhammad Rafiq, M.Pd (Coordinator; Indonesian Language and Literature Education study program)
  • Prof. Dr. Yunisrina Kismullah Yusuf (Resource person; professor at Syiah Kuala University)
  • Dr. Jumariati, M.Pd (Head of a department/program; referenced in welcome)
  • Dr. Hajjah Nur Eka Chandra (Head of an English Education undergraduate study program; referenced)
  • Dr. Sabahan, M.Pd (Head of Indonesian Language and Literature Education undergraduate study program; referenced)
  • Prof. (name partly garbled in subtitles) Elianti / Elly (Director representative in opening/acknowledgements)
  • Mr. Anugerah Dio Pratama (mentioned as leading the prayer)

Institutions / Platforms (sources referenced)

  • Lambung Mangkurat University (Universitas Lambung Mangkurat)
  • Syiah Kuala University (Universitas Syiah Kuala)
  • Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) (postgraduate program referenced)
  • Google Meet / Zoom (online meeting context)
  • Scopus (indexed database referenced extensively)
  • WoS (World of Science/WoS implied via “WASH/WoS” in subtitle text)
  • Turnitin (plagiarism checking)
  • Google Scholar / directory of open access journals (Open Access Journal Directory referenced)
  • Mendeley (reference management mentioned)
  • Simago Journal Rank (SJR) (referenced as a way to check quartiles; Scopus quartile display also mentioned)
  • Example journal titles mentioned:
    • International Journal of Instruction
    • Studies in English Language Education
    • (Some journal titles appear with subtitle errors.)

Original video