Memahami Editor dan Reviewer

Abubakar Eby Hara23 September 2021

Hari ke-6

KEENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN DAN KEBUDAYAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIADETASERING 2021 Pelatihan dan Pendampingan Penulisan Karya Ilmiah

No Komponen yang dinilai Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2

1. Kelengkapan dan kesesuaian Jrunal (10%)

2. Ruang lingkup dan kedalaman pembahasan (30%)

3.

Kecukupan dan kemutakhirandata/informasi dan metodologi(30%)

4.Kelengkapan unsur dan kualitaspenerbit (30%)

TOTAL = (100 %)

| PENILAIAN REVIEWER

Sebab Kegagalan Paper Ketika Menghadapi Reviewer

05 06

03

04

01 02

Bahasa Inggris yang buruk.

Pengulangan pemasukan makalah yang telah ditolak tanpa usaha revisi.

Penelaah yang diusulkan tidak berada di bidang kepakaran sesuai dengan isi paper.

Respon buruk kepada komentar penelaah.

Paper yang dimasukkan di luar lingkup jurnal yang dituju.

Format penulisan tidak mengikuti aturan yang telah ditetapkan.

Sumber: Paul Haddad, Editor Journal of Chromatography

Masukkan ke satu jurnal saja pada satu waktu.

Mengikuti dengan tepat aturan-aturan yang ditetapkan oleh jurnal.

Penggunaan bahasa yang baik dan cek sendiri atau dengan kolega sebelum benar-benar dimasukkan ke jurnal.

01

02

03

04

Cara Mengatasinya

Pilih jurnal yang tepat.Melalui: Scopus, Eigenfactor, ISI Thompson

Hal yang Harus Ditekankan

Lebih kritis terhadap karya sendiri

Bertanya ke kolega untuk kritik konstruktif

Karya pertama belum bisa langsung sempurna

Memperbanyak jam terbang menulis

Proses Review

Pelajari dengan seksama komentar yang diberikan

Siapkan suatu tulisanyang berisi respondetil dari setiapkomentar yangdiberikan

Komentar reviewerbisa dianggap sebagaisuatu diskusi ilmiah,banyak hal yang bisadipelajari

02 0301

Teknis Review

Copy-paste setiap komentar, dan berikan respon satu-persatu tanpa ada yang terlewat.a.Respon komentar secara ilmiahb. Berikan alasan yang kuat, terukur ilmiah, dan sopan apabila komentar reviewer dirasa salah.

Jelaskan dengan sangat rincirevisi apa yang telah dilakukandari komentar yang Diberikan(cantumkanhalaman dan bariskalau perlu)

Sesuaikan Keseluruhanmanuskrip akibat beberapabagian yang telah direvisi sesuaikomentar.

02 0301

ACCEPTANCE

Sumber: Nigel Cook, Editor-in-chief, Ore Geology Reviews

Reviewerkecocokan naskah dengan misi jurnal dan bidang fokus.

dikirim ke dua atau lebih peer reviewer untuk komentar kritis dan rekomendasi mereka terkait publikasi.

dua set komentar: satu untuk penulis dan satu untuk editor - umumnyakomentar positif dikirim untuk penulis, meskipun komentar kepadaeditor merekomendasikan penolakan.

Hal ini dapat terjadi ketika satu atau lebih reviewer merasa bahwamakalah tersebut memiliki kekurangan yang signifikan atau 'fatal', yang tidak mereka sebutkan dalam komentar mereka kepada penulis.

Editor mencoba untuk mensintesis aspek dua komentar ini dalam suratmereka kepada penulis.

Devers, K. J., & Frankel, R. M. (2001). Getting qualitative research published. Education for health (Abingdon, England), 14(1)

Penerimaan dan revisiReviewers biasanya ‘accept as is,’ ‘accept with minor modifications,’ ‘reconsider after major modifications,’ or ‘reject.’

Kecuali ‘reject’, yang lain masih berarti tertarik untukmenerbitkan walau bukan komitmen

Pengalaman – minta perbaikan terus setelah revisi dibuat.

There are a number of other steps between acceptance and publication, generally involving editing for clarity and brevity, preparing/revising graphs and tables, and improving the cited references.

Devers, K. J., & Frankel, R. M. (2001). Getting qualitative research published. Education for health (Abingdon, England), 14(1)

Jawaban editorI trust you are well. Thank you for your continued patience during the peer review process.

Your manuscript "Crafting Taiwan-Southeast Asian Relations with Halal Tourism" which you submitted to Third World Quarterly, has now been reviewed and a final decision has been made.

Unfortunately, the reviewers have raised serious concerns so your paper cannot be accepted for publication in Third World Quarterly. The referees’ comments are included at the bottom of this email.

Please accept our apologies for the delay in reaching a decision on your manuscript. As you will appreciate, the peer review process is being delayed by the pandemic, which is impacting on the lives of reviewers and editors. We have now received two reports from experts in this area. Unfortunately, the reviewers both find the article unsuited to publication. Their primary reason for this is that they find the manuscript lacking in an original contribution to the field and in substantial new empirical research that would help to support that. Although interviews are briefly mentioned as part of the methodology, these are barely used and when they are there is no critical reflection on them or explanation of the methodology. There are fairly long sections where no evidence is cited at all so the source of the findings is unclear. The reviewers also both point to weaknesses in the theoretical framing and clarity of the argument made in the manuscript.

We wish you every success and hope this will not discourage you from submitting to Third World Quarterly in the future.

Best wishes,

Jawaban editorYour manuscript "From Securitization to Desecuritization: Indonesia Maritime Security under Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo" which you submitted to Third World Quarterly, has now been reviewed and a final decision has been made. Unfortunately, the reviewers have raised serious concerns so your paper cannot be accepted for publication in Third World Quarterly.

First, please accept our apologies for the delay in reaching a decision on your manuscript. It took a long time to secure the referee reports. We have now received two reports from experts in this area. Although on a relevant topic for the TWQ readership, the reviewers are clear that this particular article does not offer the kind of new contribution to the field expected of articles published in the journal. R1 does not consider the article to meet the standards of rigour required and both referees indicate that the articles does not offer a sufficiently new argument or research evidence to warrant publication. We have therefore decided to reject the article at this stage, and appreciate that this will be a disappointing decision.

The referees’ comments are included at the bottom of this email.

Contoh referee 1Comments to the Author

The paper discusses an interesting topic and touches upon a significant and timely swift in Indonesia’s maritime policy. However, there are several aspects of the paper, which need significant improvement prior to be considered for publication. More specifically:

- Did the author(s) indeed intend to examine the securitisation of the maritime security concept as a whole, or just IUU fishing and the foreign vessels’ sinking policy, which dominate the focus and discussion of this paper throughout? If indeed Maritime Security is the focus, then the paper needs to examine ALL the threats (and respective Widodo’s policies) that the concept encapsulates, such as e.g. maritime piracy, maritime terrorism, smuggling/ trafficking related crimes, etc. If not, you need to rewrite the paper and focus on the securitisation and desecuritisation of IUU fishing.

- Similarly, and as it occurs throughout the paper, the two sections titled ‘Maritime Security as an Existential Threat’ and ‘Is Maritime Security Securitized?’ examine only IUU fishing, the foreign vessels’ sinking policy and Susi’s / Jokowi’s endeavours. As such and in addition to the fundamental differences by definition between Maritime Security and IUU fishing, I am not sure these headings reflect the content that follows them or provide answer to the question asked.

- The abstract needs to be considerably strengthened and explicitly highlight why this paper is original, significant and what contribution it makes to the academic knowledge. It also suggests that ‘the paper proposes that the conflicting elite's interests and the specific context of the foreign policy discourses in the process of securitization and desecuritization are influential in Widodo’s changing policy.’ However, there was no discussion and/ or evidence provided in any section about the alleged conflicting elite’s interests so this is just an opinion statement without any substantial academic basis so it has to be rephrased and adequately supported or removed.

- Several claims are used as fundamental arguments throughout the paper but no evidence is provided to support them. Some examples where references should be added are: pg1 ln 50-56, pg2 ln 2-22, pg5 ln 6-49, pg6 ln 15-32, pg11 ln 41-50, pg15 ln 32-55, etc.

- There are several grammatical errors and typos throughout the paper, starting from the title, so a good proofreading is required.

Contoh jawaban diterimaIt is a pleasure to accept your manuscript entitled "The Struggle to Uphold a Regional Human Rights Regime: The Winding Role of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)" in its current form for publication in the Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional.

As you know RBPI adopts the continuous publishing model. This article is schedule to the next batch of pieces to be published in the issue 1/2019 of RBPI, to go on line in the next weeks. Meanwhile, we remember that this contribution should remain unpublished and may not be submitted to any other vehicle.

We have some brief and very important notes about the issue and about your paper:

1. The Editorial Production of your article

Please be attentive to the demands presented by our Team in the next days. We need work together to finish the editorial production of your article. The next steps are dependent on the responses that you can give to these demands as fast as possible.

Terima Kasih