Some of the researchers chose to present their research orally at the conference, some of them preferred to publish it in a journal, or they go on to publish their work presented at a conference in a journal publication.
We must first know what consider publication in a journal is and in a conference. In the conference, researchers can mingle and interact with other international audience with the same domain and might be able to alter the new ideas. The journal publication will be cited more and sometimes bring more prestige than the conference version. The quality of reputable journal is generally determined by various ranking systems, such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) from Thomson Reuters, Scopus’s Source Normalized Index per Paper (SNIP), Google Scholar Index and Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABs).
The papers submitted to a conference and journal are usually reviewed during a certain period. The conference review gives faster feedback and quite predictable, while the journal review takes longer and far more detailed to get into publication. Each journal and conference has its own specific set of guidelines, which must be adjusted in the author’s paper. Conference papers are typically published in “proceedings” which contains collections of papers presented at a conference. Journals papers refer to an articles published in an “issue or theme of the journal”. Like the conference organizers, the editorial board of the journal can also decide to accept or reject a paper. Formal accept, minor revision, major revision and straight reject are the most common types of journal’s decision based on the results of the review process. Conference have higher standards of novelty than a journal. The journal publication will be cited more than the conference version.
Publishing an academic work is a goal all academics strive for to make their research visible or as a way to improve their performance or career promotion. Generally speaking, both journals and conference are crucial places for researchers to advance and contribute in terms of knowledge. Where you publish will depend largely on the particular intention and scientific integrity of your research.
Submitted articles in high-quality scholarly journals can be rejected for many reasons. A large number of papers get rejected solely on the basis of their writing or without being reviewed any further. Every researcher experiences rejection at all stages of their careers. Studies have shown that around 21% are rejected without review, and approximately 40% of papers are rejected after peer review. In such cases, every authors need to figure out number of options on what to do when their papers are rejected.
- Give yourself time and face it with a clear mind and proper analysis
- Provide the submission details and learn all the details of reviewer comments
- Asking Editor to reconsider with good reasons and arguments
- Revise, rewritten and (re)submit to same or another journal that fits your work
- Do a series of improvements for your articles
- Ask advice to a more experienced researcher who has published more than you
- Editors, like all humans, make mistakes
- Try again and do some research works
Having a paper rejected can be frustrating and make you unhappy, but you still have a chance to turn this condition into your advantage. Your work is likely not as terrible or flawed as you think it is and editors often make the wrong decision. Enjoy and good luck for publishing your research and get some more experience!
Research Synergy Institute was organized the workshop entitled “Scientific Writing and Publishing in High Impact Journal Workshop” in September 17, 2019, at Universitas Islam Bandung (Unisba). This event was held in cooperation with Asian Journal of Business Research, MAG Scholar and Universitas Islam Bandung (Unisba). Present as the trainers were Dr. Hiram Ting from from UCSI University, Sarawak, Malaysia, as a Vice President of MAG Scholar and Managing Editors of Asian Journal of Business Research and Dr. Jacky Cheah from Universiti Putra Malaysia. The workshop was attended by 14 invited lecturers from universities that have been affiliated with RSF. Before attending the workshop, several participants had presented their articles at a conference organized by RSF.
The workshop was officially opened by Dean of UNISBA Master of Management, Prof. Dr. Muhardi, S.E.,M.Si and Research Synergy Foundation Chairman, Dr. Hendrati Dwi Mulyaningsih. The workshop began with a brief explanation from Dr. Hendrati regarding the scientific process commonly carried out by RSF to improve the development of higher education in Indonesia and even to the global scope. The workshop then continued with a very enlightening presentation from Dr. Hiram Ting. There are a number of salient pointes which were emphasized in Dr. Hiram’s presentation: the philosophy of research publication, technical preparations for publishing articles in reputable journals, understanding the reviewing process and how articles get accepted or rejected by a journal. Dr. Hiram also explained about the publish-or-perish as a part of scientific cultures among academicians and how to deal with it. In the midst of the challenges of lecturers to teach and the responsibility of research publication, Dr. Hiram shared his positive experience and some tricks that made him able to contribute many academics achievement, especially through research publication. He said that he always include his students and colleagues regardless of their level of education, to help contribute research ideas or data. The lecturers must create a comfortable and conducive environment in conducting a research. He also stressed the importance of being emotionally intelligent and open-minded person in accepting a constructive criticism from reviewers.
In the next session, his presentation was then continued by his friend who was a young researcher, Dr. Jacky Cheah. Dr. Jacky Cheah was one of the young researchers who has many achievements among Malaysian academics. He shared his experience of how he struggled to make a lot of research and then published it in reputable journals. He also contributes as a reviewer and editor in several reputable journals. Together with Dr. Hiram, Dr. Jacky communicated effectively with all participants and provided their best advice and review in each of their respective papers. They also recommend which journals that are suitable for their research. Both Dr. Hiram and Dr. Jacky, they acknowledged that their research activities are mostly done outside the university. The workshop atmosphere was very intensive and conducive with the recommendations and directions from the workshop trainers. The workshop then ended with a group photo session. By holding the workshop, RSF & RSI hopes that this will become one of the media to create a conducive research ecosystem and support the capacity-building of Indonesia Researchers.
Applied the APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY approach (POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY FOR CHANGE APPROACH) to the learning process, Research Synergy Institute collaborate with UNISBA to held UNISBA Scientific and Academic Writing Coaching. The approach consists of five stages/phase: Define, Discovery, Dream, Design, and Destiny (Coperider et al.) The program started by:
H-14 workshop day: Participants must submit a draft paper
H-3 workshop day: All participants received four documents from scientific review process consist of Content Review, Language review, similarity score, and journal recommendation.
In the day of the workshop, participants have started the DEFINE and DISCOVERY phase through their content review, language review, similarity score, and journal recommendation result. From the results of the scientific review, participants did DISCOVERY what they had done and which the best part.
By the journal recommendation, participants started the DREAM phase where they CLEARLY known the purpose of the journal to be targeted. By this stage, participants can explore various published articles and analysis comparing the articles that have been made into detailed improvement steps. In this phase, participants experienced the DESIGN PHASE.
These steps give participants a TIME FRAME which is an action plan written by each participant called DESTINY PHASE.
Through this approach, facilitator empowered the lecturers to masterly meet government requirements in scientific writing standards and publications.
This approach was designed by the Research Synergy Institute (Support system of the Research Synergy Foundation) as Innovation and alternative to various scientific writing improvement programs for lecturers.
Rejection of a scientific paper by the journal is the norm in academic publishing. Most reviewers do not want to reject an article unless there are justifiable reasons for doing it. A study by Hall and Wilcox concluded that 62% of the published papers have been rejected at least once. In other words, rejection of your hard-worked paper is sometimes normal and should not be the end of the world. Once you recover from the frustration of rejection, it can be helpful to consider the detailed comments and summary as perceived by the reviewers, as an opportunity and valuable information to improve your research.
We have listed a few number of reasons why a journal decides to reject a paper.
The editorial board will undertake some basic checks required by the journal. The Editor-in-Chief has the discretion to reject the manuscript straight off even before sending it to the reviewers for reviewing. The main reason of this rejection is because it fails the technical screening. The technical screening does not judge the scientific content of the article. It includes: the paper contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized, the article lacks key elements such as a title, list of authors and affiliations, main text, references, figures and tables or the article does not conform to the journal’s Author Guideline.
Out of journal Scope
Each journal has a well-defined aim and scope. You should check and learn the aims and scope carefully before submitting your article. The journal will reject the manuscript that lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal.
Inaccurate or inconsistent Data Reported
Inappropriate statistical analysis and unreliable data may lead to poor analysis and inaccurate conclusion. Precisely showing the results with application of statistical principles and proper data will increase the probability of acceptance of the manuscript.
Lack of Novelty and Originality
Novelty and originality are a very important aspect of the research. For finding novelty in your area of research, you should carry out an extensive literature review and depend on your in-depth knowledge of the field. The researcher should be able to interpret the research outcome in a valuable way.
Language and Writing Issues
Language quality plays a particularly important role in a scholarly article. Poor language quality will make the referee and readers difficult to understand. It is always a good idea to ask others or use any English Language Editing services to check the language and structure of your paper.
An Abstract is a brief synopsis or summary of the most important points in a scientific paper. Abstracts have always played a crucial role in explaining your study quickly and succinctly to journal editors and researchers and prompting them to read further. Successful authors put substantial effort into crafting their abstracts, in a sense it is a marketing document for a full paper. The fact, the abstract appears first in a paper, it is generally the last part written. Only after the paper has been completed can the authors decide what should be in the abstract and what parts are supporting detail.
The first rule of Abstract writing is that it should engage the reader by telling him of her what your paper is about and why they should read it. Authors needs to make a clear statement of the topic of their papers and research question. Learning how to write an abstract for a conference is a matter of following a simple formula for success. Here are four useful tips about how to write a killer conference abstract from Dr. Helen Kara, an Associate Research Fellow at the Third Sector Research Centre, University of Birmingham:
- Make your abstract as fascinating and enticing as possible. Authors should take a little time to think through some key questions: What kinds of presentations is this conference most likely to attract? How can you make yours different? What are the fashionable areas in your field right now? Are you working in one of these areas? If so, how can you make your presentation different from others doing the same? If not, how can you make your presentation appealing?
- Write your abstract well. Engaging concepts in plain English, with a sprinkling of references for context, is much more appealing to conference organizers wading through sheaves of abstracts than complicated sentences with lots of long words, definitions of terms, and several dozen references. Conference organizers are not looking for evidence that you can do really clever writing (save that for your article abstracts), they are looking for evidence that you can give an entertaining presentation.
- Conference abstracts written in the future tense are off-putting for conference organizers, because they don’t make it clear that the potential presenter knows what they’ll be talking about. So Don’t write in the future tense if you can help it – and, if you must, specify clearly what you will do and when.
- Explain your research (its context, method and findings), and also give an explanation of what you intend to include in the presentation.
Why is the abstract so important? Well, because it is often the only section of a paper that is read and usually determines whether a reader downloads and reads the rest of the paper. Or, in the case of a conference paper, the abstract will determine whether it is accepted or not for presentation to colleagues. Conference organizers and journal editors and reviewers pay close attention to the abstract because it is a good predictor of the quality of the paper or talk. While writing an abstract, you will need to focus on one specific angle of your research and diligently follow all abstract style and formatting guidelines.
Take your time and stay focused! A good abstract is not written in just a few minutes. Even experienced researchers prefer to go over it several times. Think of a half-dozen phrases and keywords that may help attract people to read your publication.
The term research paper may also refer to an academic paper which contains an original study based on the analysis and interpretation of the data. In order to disseminate the research among other scholars, a research paper will often require to be published in an academic journal. Each paper will go to review process and must meet all publication quality standards. Shortly after the submitted paper is received by the journal’s editorial board, the paper will continue to be peer-reviewed.
Peer-review has been a formal part of scientific communication since the first scientific journals appeared. Every journals follow a policy of evaluating papers and saves valuable time before they take to publish accepted papers based on its approach and philosophy. Papers have been subjected to the peer-review process prior to publication for over centuries ago. Peer-review was introduced to scholarly publication in 1731 by the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which published a collection of peer-reviewed medical papers.
There are 3 most common types of peer-review process in common use at present:
1. Single Blind Review
In this type of peer-review, the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of paper
Authors, howe the reviewers identity is kept anonymous from the authors.
2. Double Blind Review
In this type of peer-review both authors and reviewers are not aware of each other’s identity and affiliation.
3. Open Review
In an open peer eview, the authors and the reviewers both know each other’s identities.
Peer-review helps the editor or publisher reach a decision to accept or reject the papers for publication. The editor can also decide to reject the paper immediately before they even undergo a review process because it doesn’t meet the basic of the journal’s standard. Peer-review of a journal is defined as the process by which academic papers will be evaluated by one or more people with similar competences. Journal editors are always looking out for reviewers who are experts in the certain topics or particular fields and invite them to assess the paper based on the requirements of the journal. Reviewers will provide a review report as a feedback, which is generally written in a form that includes overall rating of papers and recommendations. Peer-review is a fundamental process to ensure the integrity, credibility and quality of final research paper. It also helps to improve the quality of published research, and increases networking possibilities within research communities.