How to Publish Your Article

Nurul Indarti
Seminar Kepenulisan Riset Bagi Mahasiswa

3 Desember 2017
BEBERAPA FAKTA
 Peringkat publikasi dunia (1)
Sumber: http://scimagojr.com, 26 November 2017
Rank Country Documents Citable documents Citations Self-citations Citations/doc. H index
1 United States 10193964 9165271 240363880 110517058 23.58 1965
2 China 4595249 4525851 32913858 18210007 7.16 655
3 United Kingdom 2898927 2499445 60988844 13948928 21.04 1213
4 Germany 2570206 2394158 49023207 12158563 19.07 1059
5 Japan 2367977 2277777 35480575 9503478 14.98 871
6 France 1826708 1712312 33910955 7292478 18.56 966
7 Canada 1468796 1338700 31052115 5578703 21.14 963
8 Italy 1449301 1335074 25366435 5850838 17.5 839
9 India 1302605 1223521 10839171 3694872 8.32 478
10 Spain 1148258 1060196 18244660 4201659 15.89 723
11 Australia 1111010 996160 20363776 4272355 18.33 795
12 South Korea 914572 887739 10741924 2220618 11.75 536
13 Russian Federation 860847 842674 5947119 1831981 6.91 467
14 Netherlands 816316 745545 20136037 3133734 24.67 835
15 Brazil 749498 715170 7557916 2501838 10.08 461
16 Switzerland 595889 550777 15280692 1969916 25.64 818
17 Taiwan 575296 556749 6885565 1402557 11.97 406
18 Sweden 552343 514919 13028361 1926467 23.59 735
19 Poland 527034 509596 5048906 1282858 9.58 445
20 Turkey 485366 453565 4414662 1039323 9.1 339
 Peringkat publikasi dunia (2)
Rank Country Documents Citable documents Citations Self-citations Citations/doc. H index
21 Belgium 447044 414224 9511708 1276664 21.28 661
22 Iran 388672 377098 2770074 1019641 7.13 234
23 Austria 324683 300008 6183360 793299 19.04 540
24 Denmark 322814 297964 7837142 1076429 24.28 619
25 Israel 320716 297182 6960963 903593 21.7 584
26 Finland 281770 265495 5965336 884184 21.17 533
27 Greece 268515 246941 3961410 602804 14.75 402
28 Czech Republic 265658 256646 2756969 620403 10.38 367
29 Mexico 258077 245164 2849413 568014 11.04 352
30 Norway 254807 231909 4905834 737792 19.25 491
31 Portugal 242513 226822 3290224 610756 13.57 379
32 Singapore 241361 224763 4097146 486934 16.98 454
33 Hong Kong 241145 225890 4385700 529709 18.19 447
34 Malaysia 214883 207498 1299378 341788 6.05 224
35 South Africa 213998 196132 2689207 569883 12.57 361
36 New Zealand 199300 179356 3614606 519049 18.14 428
37 Argentina 174968 165384 2389147 480251 13.65 337
38 Ireland 168071 150618 3002591 330529 17.87 414
39 Hungary 160608 152787 2310388 349965 14.39 363
40 Ukraine 158984 155988 897756 239322 5.65 211
 Peringkat publikasi dunia (3)
Rank Country Documents Citable documents Citations Self-citations Citations/doc. H index
41 Egypt 157835 152954 1331681 262291 8.44 213
42 Romania 147532 143024 810831 188546 5.5 201
43 Thailand 139682 132845 1510067 238251 10.81 269
44 Saudi Arabia 133396 127612 1144870 187175 8.58 241
45 Chile 116283 110779 1525554 286939 13.12 291
46 Pakistan 109760 104759 767057 198885 6.99 197
47 Slovakia 90178 87582 807380 157116 8.95 222
48 Croatia 87037 83516 695289 131838 7.99 221
49 Slovenia 78751 75362 917085 156686 11.65 231
50 Colombia 71966 68319 629134 93289 8.74 216
51 Tunisia 67698 64445 459550 100266 6.79 144
52 Nigeria 67008 63719 432647 89702 6.46 153
53 Bulgaria 64425 62324 631952 93898 9.81 205
54 Serbia 62428 59226 391776 85432 6.28 149
55 Indonesia 54146 51665 380569 50906 7.03 175
56 Algeria 49697 48608 294124 61266 5.92 125
57 Morocco 47329 44578 358395 66849 7.57 151
58 Lithuania 40863 39712 346503 71254 8.48 165
59 United Arab Emirates 37528 34927 299155 31286 7.97 153
60 Venezuela 35778 34327 381824 45129 10.67 181
 Indonesia
Sumber: http://scimagojr.com, 26 November 2017
 Publikasi UGM
Sumber: http://scimagojr.com, 26 November 2017
 Lembaga Indonesia di Scopus
s.d. 2 November 2015=170 lembaga
No. Lembaga n No. Lembaga n
1 Institut Teknologi Bandung 4791 21 Badan Pengkajian dan Penerapan Teknologi 380
2 Universitas Indonesia 3970 22 Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional Indonesia 338
3 Universitas Gadjah Mada 2622 23 Universitas Sumatera Utara 273
4 Institut Pertanian Bogor 1847 24 Universitas Sriwijaya 266
5 Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia 1421 25 Universitas Telkom 250
6 Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember 1314 26 Universitas Lampung 247
7 Center for International Forestry Research 989 27 Universitas Sam Ratulangi 235
8 Universitas Brawijaya 958 28 Universitas Kristen Petra 232
9 Universitas Diponegoro 856 29 Universitas Riau 217
10 Universitas Padjadjaran 840 30 Universitas Jenderal Soedirman 194
11 Universitas Hasanuddin 775 31 Eijkman Institute for Molecular Biology 188
12 Universitas Airlangga 749 32 Universitas Islam Indonesia 176
13 Universitas Andalas 566 33 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia 169
14 Universitas Udayana 565 34 Universitas Jember 150
15 Universitas Syiah Kuala 563 35 Universitas Negeri Malang 148
16 Universitas Bina Nusantara 562 36 Universitas Trisakti 148
17 U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit 463 37 Universitas Ahmad Dahlan 145
18 RS Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo 461 38 Universitas Halu Oleo 141
19 Universitas Sebelas Maret 423 39 Ujniversitas Katolik Widya Mandala 139
20 Kementerian Kesehatan 392 40 Universitas Katolik Atma Jaya 138
“Writing is hard work. A clear sentence is
no accident. Very few sentences come out
right the first time, or even the third time.
Remember this in moments of despair. If
you find that writing is hard, it’s because it
is hard.”
Zinsser (2006; p. 12)

“Writing is an act of persuasion that

is as much about rhetorical flair as it is
about care in matters of method and
theory.”
Walsham (1995)
Mengapa menulis?

Ikatlah ilmu
dengan
menuliskannya

[Imam Ali]
 Gajah mati meninggalkan gading,
harimau mati meninggalkan belang,
manusia mati meninggalkan nama,
akademisi mati meninggalkan publikasi.

Peribahasa Indonesia
dimodifikasi
 Motivasi: Mengapa menulis?
• Bagian dari aktualisasi diri.
• Poin versus koin
– Mendapatkan kum, untuk kenaikan pangkat
(Maksimal poin 40)
– Reward dari lembaga?
• Membangun track-record: dana penelitian/award
– Dikenal di bidangnya -> banyak diacu/disitir (citation
index dan impact factor tinggi)
– Rich CV
• Manfaat luas untuk orang lain/masyarakat
 Apa itu menulis?
• Menuangkan ide/gagasan ke dalam bentuk
tulisan berupa makalah/karya ilmiah/jurnal.
– Muatan terkait pengembangan konsep (artikel
konseptual)
– Muatan terkait hasil penelitian empiris (artikel empiris)
– Muatan mencakup gabungan keduanya.
• Menulis untuk JURNAL atau BUKU?
 Menulis Ilmiah [outlet artikel]

• JURNAL • BUKU
– Diyakini memiliki impact – Diyakini relatif rendah
factor dan citation index – Tidak melalui proses blind
yang lebih tinggi review
– Melalui proses yang rumit – Kurang bergengsi sehingga
dan butuh waktu lama (i.e. dipandang mudah
blind-review)
• Bab-Bab dalam Buku
 Tahapan Publikasi
• Seminar/konferensi
– Diseminasi ide/gagasan dari
penelitian yang sedang Be aware of
dikerjakan
– Mendapatkan masukan predatory
(kritik dan saran) untuk conferences
tulisan yang sedang
diselesaikan and journals
• Jurnal
– Akhir dari sebuah perjalanan
penelitian
Jurnal Nasional atau Internasional
• Definisi nasional dan internasional
– Cakupan geografis/sebaran jurnal ?
– Cakupan materi ?
– Cakupan bahasa?
• Nasional = berbahasa lokal (Indonesia)
• Internasional = berbahasa Inggris
– Cakupan lembaga yang menerbitkan (i.e. dewan
redaksi, penerbit)
• Nasional = dalam negeri (e.g. JEBI FEB UGM)
• Internasional = luar negeri (e.g. Elsevier, Inderscience,
Sage, Emerald)
 Strategi Umum Publikasi
• Susun portofolio penelitian yang beragam
– Waktu tunggu tulisan hingga diterbitkan dapat mencapai 3 tahun
(melalui satu atau beberapa revisi)
– Waktu tunggu tulisan hingga ditolak = 6-8 bulan
• Fokus pada satu atau dua bidang keahlian/minat penelitian
• Buat satu atau dua tulisan dari karya yang ada (thesis/disertasi yang
disusun)
• Sasar jurnal yang “diimpikan”
– Lihat pemeringkatan jurnal sebagai panduan, indeks (?)
– Mulai dari jurnal tahap lokal, nasional dan internasional
– Lihat bidang minat jurnal yang dituju
 Memilih Konferensi

• Tema atau topik

• Penyelenggaranya; pesertanya
• Prosedur seleksi
• Kesempatan publikasi
• Biaya konferensi
• Tempat/lokasi
 Memilih Jurnal
• Jurnal dengan publikasi secara cepat (rapid review) ?
• Jurnal dengan publikasi dalam berkala "berkualitas"
(prestige) ?
• Siapa yang membaca jurnal tersebut (circulation) dan
apakah peneliti lain mensitasi karya kita (citation)?
• Pertimbangan lain:
– Apakah jurnal membahas konten terkini?
– Apakah jurnal tersebut mempublikasikan makalah terkait dengan
bidang kita?
– Apakah jurnal tersebut memuat makalah-makalah terbaik di
bidang kajian kita?
– Apakah kita membaca makalah yang dipublikasi dalam jurnal
tsb?
– Adakah biaya yang dikenakan untuk tiap halaman termuat atau
reprint gratis?
Proses Publikasi
Reject
Reviewer I

Author: Editor
Manusript Reviewer II
Reject Reviewer III
Accept:
-Without any revision
-With minor revision
-With major revision
Proses Publikasi Artikel Tahun Terakhir
Jurnal Internasional

No. Judul Artikel Journal Tahapan

1. Elucidating the Work- International Journal of Riset dilaksanakan 2008; Submit
family Conflict among Management and dua jurnal berbeda; 1 rejected;
Indonesian Lecturers Enterprise 1 major revision; Submit ke
in The Period of Development, Vol.15, jurnal ke-3: 2012-2014; Maret
Education Reform No.1, p.24-42, 2016 2015 submit ke 4; 6 bulan –
major revision; end 2015
accepted (published 2016)
2. How do Indonesian International Journal Riset 2010; Submit konferensi
industries perceive Technology Transfer and THC10 2012; Submit jurnal ke 1
university-industry Commercialisation , (2 bulan ditolak, alasan tidak
collaboration? Vol.12, No.1,2,3, p.157- sesuai tema); Jurnal ke-2 2012;
Motivations, benefits, 171 2013 accepted 2014 (published 2013)
and problems.
Proses Publikasi Artikel Tahun Terakhir
Jurnal Internasional

No. Judul Artikel Journal Tahapan

3. Impact of External International Riset dilaksanakan 2008-2010;
Knowledge and Journal of Business 2010 Submit jurnal k1, 6 bulan
Interaction on and Innovation rejected (2011); April 2015
Innovation Capabilities Research (Vol.13, submit; 6 bulan revisi (2014); mid
among Indonesian SMEs No.4, pp.430 – 450, 2015 accepted, mid July 2017
2017) published.
4. Mechanisms of International Riset 2013; Konferensi 2015;
intergenerational of Journal of Submit jurnal (3 bulan – major
knowledge transfer Entrepreneurship revision), re-submit (3 bulan)
among Indonesian and Small Business accepted Maret 2016, mid July
family firms (Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 2017 published.
475-491)
Proses Publikasi Artikel Tiga Tahun Terakhir
Jurnal Nasional Terakreditasi

No. Judul Artikel Journal Tahapan

1. The Effect of Knowledge Journal of Riset dilaksanakan 2015;
Sources on Innovation Indonesian Konferensi GAMAICEB2016 (third
Capabilities among Economics and best paper), Submit ke JIEB Des
Restaurants and Cafés in Business (Vol. 32, 2016, accepted with conditional
Indonesia No. 1, pp. 33-50, (review first round, April), Juni
2017) (second round), August accepted
2. Pengaruh Praktik-Praktik Jurnal Siasat Bisnis Riset 2016; Submit jurnal
Rantai Pasokan pada (Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. (November 2016), Accepted with
Kinerja Rantai Pasokan: 19-36, 2017) minor revision (February 2017),
Studi pada Usaha Kecil Resubmission (April 2017),
dan Menengah Batik di
Indonesia
MARTIN CARLSSON-WALL & KALLE KRAUS

GETTING A ROBUST DESIGN THROUGH

THE HELP OF MINIMAL STRUCTURE(S)
 Tantangan Utama Kita
1. Innovation challenge:
How to find an idea that is interesting
enough to write about?

2. Pedagogical challenge:
How to find a suitable storyline to make
readers understand the idea?

3. Time challenge:
How to find the time when there is
teaching and administration to do?
 The “Ambition Trap”
Let’s do groundbreaking research!! J

This is difficult…

No one understands!

I never get time to do

research!!

Can I be a researcher?? L
How do you do
it?
 Many articles are structured in six different
chapters

1. Introduction 3. Methodology 5. Analysis

2. Theory 4. Empirics 6. Conclusions

How to avoid motivation drains?

By analyzing the sub-headings: an “article architecture”
started to emerge. Was this answer?

Motivate why topic Highlight gap in Describe how

1. Intro
is interesting current research article solves gap!

2.1 Literature 2.2 New theoretical 2.3 Theoretical

2. Theory
review – the gap? perspective(s) framework

3.1 Research
3. Method 3.2 Data collection 3.3 Data analysis
design

4.1 Background & 4.2 Empirical 4.3 Empirical

4.Empirics
context theme A (or a case) theme B (or a case)

5. Analysis 5.1 Contribution A 5.2 Contribution B

Summarize Acknowledge Suggest future

6. Conclusions
contribution(s) limitations research
No, analyzing sub-headings and creating the
“article architecture” was not enough…

Even though one could divide up work (and

responsibilities), it was still difficult to write a
sub-chapter (i.e. literature review) for one
person quickly if there was parallel teaching
 “Flow” started to come first when we began to
brainstorm linkages in a more structured manner

Ø By dividing the article into ”storyline” and ”body”, we

learned were complexity should be placed (and not…)

Article architecture

”Storyline” 1 ”Body”
2
Links intro & 3 Describes the
conclusions 4
argument(s)
5
Should be Should be
6 detailed and
clear and
easy to grasp complex
 To create “flow”, we also learned that “storyline” and
“body” benefited from having a certain number of pages

1
2
”Storyline” 3
”Body”
4
5 • Chapters 2-5
• Chapters 1+6
6
• In a 30-pages article, • Ch 2+3 are often equal
”storyline” often make in size to ch 4+5
up 3-4 pages (12-15 pages)

• ”Storyline” should be • Avoid too much

simple because it ambition. It is better to
makes the article have a finished paper
accessable to many than a great and
different readers. complex idea
To reduce complexity within “body”, a starting point is
linkages between literature, theory and contribution(s)

2.1 Literature review – 2.2 New theoretical

2. Theory
the gap? perspective(s)

5. Analysis 5.1 Contribution A 5.2 Contribution B

We have also found it useful to distinguish between meta
theories and local theories due to their different scope…

2.2 New theoretical

2. Theory
perspective(s)

Meta theories Local theories

•Broad scope, not specific to
particular questions and fields
•Ex. Institutional theory, Marxist
theory, Agency Theory, ANT
• Narrow scope, focuses on
specific questions, often within
certain literatures
• Ex. Hopwood’s control theory
within accounting
 Still, identifying relevant literature-theory-contribution
linkages are difficult. Here are example of challenges…

1. Innovation challenge:
Difficult to find a REAL contribution. Most of
the time, the contribution is either boring or not
there at all (we know…)

2. Pedagogical challenge:
Sometimes, there might actually be a
contribution, but then you have not presented
it in a way readers find interesting

3. Time challenge:
Why isn’t it
working?! We have ALWAYS experienced lack of time,
which is frustrating if you have (or so you
think) an answer to challenge 1 and 2…
 To reduce complexity, we structured articles into
anchor-, awareness- and perspective articles…

• Support articles (i.e. empirical

• Key articles (3-5) to build argument around
Illustrations)
• Are often well-read within the field
• Shows boundaries of lit.review
• Should be focused in lit.review & analysis
• Part of lit.review, minor role in analysis

ANCHOR AWARENESS
articles articles

PERSPECTIVE
articles

• Theoretical articles from other field/literature

• Used to develop theoretical framework
• Part of theoretical perspective, can create
innovativeness in analysis
By dividing up articles into three types, we made a
number of learning experiences…

If one acknowledges the difference between

1. Saves time anchor and awareness articles, it is easier to
get a shared understanding of a field.

Somewhat paradoxically, with fewer articles,

2. Deepens the
the key argument gets deepened because all
analysis
co-authors know the ”core” much better.

With a stronger emphasis on anchor articles, it

3. Helps to position also makes it easier for a reader to understand
contribution and position the contribution.
A second linkage concerns the relationship between
the theoretical framework and the empirical chapters

2.3 Theoretical
2. Theory
framework

4.1 Background & 4.2 Empirical 4.3 Empirical

4.Empirics
context case A case B
 We have learned that three different texts can be used
to handle iterations between theory and empirics

• To be specific when dealing with anchor
articles, we learnt that ”knowledge texts”
consisting of 5-6 pages are useful. Each co-
author writes down his/her view which shows
where authors agree and have different views.
• A first step to write up the empirics is to draft
”story texts”. Similar to knowledge texts, stories
are an intermediate step towards ”paper texts”.
The benefit is that it forces the author(s) which
have collected data to start working with the mtrl

KNOWLEDGE STORY
texts texts

PAPER
texts

• Paper texts are the end result. Initially, it is important to focus

on writing a full version. For us, it usually takes 2-3 re-writes
before we have a version worth submitting to a journal.
 TO SUMMARIZE: Research challenges and three
experiences on how to cope with them

RESEARCH CHALLENGES ”AMBITION TRAP” FRUSTRATED RESEARCHER

1. Innovation challenge:

2. Pedagogical challenge:

3. Time challenge:

1. Article architecture 2. Key linkages 3. Structuring material

- provides overall picture - gives focus - creates shared view

1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
• Three types of articles (anchor,
awareness and perspective)
• Three types of texts
(knowledge, story and paper)
Reviewing A-journals, Locke & Goddle-Biddle
(1997) show how the “pros” get published

Two processes are central to

A-journal publication

Process 1 Process 2

Constructing Problematizing
the gap the contribution

• Process 1 describes how ”anchor • Process 2 describes how significance of

articles” can be linked to show gap contribution can be shown

• Used in literature review (ch 2.1) • Used in analysis (ch 5.1+5.2)

Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997) Constructing Opportunities for Contribution:

Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organizational Studies,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol 40, No 5, p.1023-1062.
Constructing the gap is done by characterizing the
relevant literature in three different ways

Process 1: constructing the gap

Synthesized Progressive
Noncoherence
coherence coherence

• Underexplored linkages • Shared view • Disagreement

• Is used to show • Is used to show • Is used to show

underlying commonality consensus among disagreement between
among research which has research. Displays various camps in the
yet to be combined. cumulative progression literature.

• Implicit consensus • Explicit consensus • No consensus

• Rhetorical practices: • Rhetorical practices: • Rhetorical practices:

”Family resemblance” ”Always” ”Contradictory assessments”

”Collection of texts” ”Typical” ”On the one hand… on the other…”
”From a thematic point of view” ”Over time” ”Opposing camps”

Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997) Constructing Opportunities for Contribution:

Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organizational Studies,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol 40, No 5, p.1023-1062.
Problematizing the contribution is done by describing
the contribution(s) of the study in three ways

Process 2: problematizing the contribution

Incompleteness Inadequcy Incommensurability
- Specify gaps - Illuminate oversights - Advocate alt. thesis

• Specify gaps • Illuminate oversights • Advocate alternative thesis

• Existing literature is not
finished and the present
study will develop it further
• Existing literature has
overlooked important
perspectives and current
study shows how this can
be done
• Existing literature has moved
in a wrong direction. The
present study will correct this
misguided development.

• Elsbach & Sutton (1992) • Gephart (1993) • Mintzberg & Waters (1982)

ü Proposed that institutional ü Proposed the need for ü Proposed new views on strategy
theory could be developed by textual approach to qualitative since they argued current views did
incorporating impression research not fit with empirical reality
management perspectives
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997) Constructing Opportunities for Contribution:
Structuring Intertextual Coherence and “Problematizing” in Organizational Studies,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol 40, No 5, p.1023-1062.
 Editors in Academy of Management Journal has also
written interesting thoughts on the publishing process…

WRITING AND REVIEWING

Pratt, M.G. (2009) The lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing)
qualitative research, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 52, No 5, pp.856-862.

”GETTING ON BOARD”
Rynes, S.L. (2006) ”Getting on board” with AMJ: balancing quality and innovation
in the review process, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 49, No 6, pp.1097-
1102

WHEN IS A NEW PAPER ”NEW”?

Ireland, R.D. (2009) When is a ”new” paper really new?, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol 52, Vol 1, pp.9-10

THE AMJ REVIEW PROCESS

Ireland, R.D. (2008) Your manuscript’s journey through the AMJ review process,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol 51, No 3, pp.409-412
• NURUL INDARTI, Sivilokonom, Cand. Merc., PhD.
• Dosen Senior di Departemen Manajemen FEB UGM
• Kompetensi: knowledge & innovation management,
entrepreneurship, SMEs development, family business, supply
chain & quality management, business modeling, business
research methods
• Ketua Program Studi Magister Sains dan Doktor Manajemen,
FEB UGM
• Gedung Magister Sains dan Doktor FEB UGM Jl. Nusantara
• Email: nurulindarti@ugm.ac.id
• HP: 0811253258