Manda Publication

Cara Me-Review sebuah Paper [Pemula]

Hai hallo para akademia muda….wah seru yah, kalau setiap hari semakin tinggi tantangannya. Hmm…penelitian sudah, publikasi sudah, nah tantangan baru bagi siapa saja yang sering publikasi, biasanya diundang oleh pengelola jurnal atau conference untuk mereview satu atau banyak paper. Bingung? pastinya kalo pemula, tapi….jangan khawatir, shareaddict Manda akan bantu kalian gimana caranya terlihat profesional dalam mereview. Ini dia:

  1. Biasanya suatu pengelola akan mengirimkan paper sekaligus form reviewer yang harus diisi, atau bisa juga by online seperti jurnal-jurnal yang dikelola inderscience. Nah perhatikan poin-poin penilaiannya yah, baca dulu dengan seksama, karena tidak jarang ada beberapa poin dari form reviewer yang kita tidak tahu contoh “Is the paperwritten according tothe journal guideline?“, kalau ada poin seperti dan kita belum tahun guideline nya kita bisa langsung kirim email pada admin supaya dikirimkan template dan paper guidelines nya atau minta link dimana kalian bisa mendapatkan file tersebut.
  2. Ada paper yang perlu direview hanya dengan pilihan ceklis, ada juga yang hanya meminta penilaian nominal berupa YES atau NO, ada juga yang minta skor dan tidak sedikiti yang membutuhkan penilian berupa narasi. Apapun bentuknya, reviewer harus selalu siap. Pilihan ceklis atau nominal memang mudah untuk diisi karena kita tinggal lihat apakah poin-poin yang ditanyakan tertera di paper atau tidak. Skor lebih menantang, kredibilitas kita sebagai reviewer perlu dijaga, karena terkadang satu paper direview secara blind-review oleh beberapa reviewer, nah kalo skor kita buat asal-asalan dan cenderung ngawur, hmmmm jangan sampai deh diketawain yah..pertimbangan pemberian skor yang memang berdasarkan keumuman dalam penilaian ilmiah. Nah yang paling menantang adalah ketika kita diminta untuk mengomentari paper berupa narasi, karena selain memperlihatkan kemampuan kita dalam menggunakan bahasa, narasi memperlihatkan betul kemampuan seorang reviewer. Reviewer yang asal gitu? mungkin banyak, tetapi bisa jadi karena memang tidak berpengalaman sehingga komentar yang muncul cenderung normatif, miskin kosa kata, dan biasanya hanya berupa kalimat perintah.
  3. Pada bagian General Comment, kalian bisa menggunakan kombinasi dari beberapa statement yang tersedia di bawah ini, tentunya jangan lupa disesuaikan dengan topik paper yang sedang dihadapi

Contoh beberapa komentar datar: “use the template”, “add the literature review”, “mention the method”, “revise your English”, “add the data”, “Need a deeper discussion of the research results”. Komentarnya gak salah sih, tetapi kalau kita berada di posisi si penulis, apa yang ada dipikiran kalian, reviewernya kok sentimen sih, judes sih, tulisan kita mengecewakan yah?? kok kayaknya gak serius komentarnya, INI REVIEWERnya beneran???. Jangan sampai yah dikomentarin begitu sama penulis.

Nah, ini dia beberapa contoh review yang redaksinya bisa kalian adopsi sambil modifikasi, disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan:

ABSTRACT

  1. Please use the present tense on the abstract and methodology.
  2. The nature and scope of the paper is not clearly stated in the abstract

INTRODUCTION

  1. Under introduction, the definition of scientific collaboration should be stated. The difference between scientific and research collaboration should be explained. The different measurements for collaboration should be explained better. This will help the reader understand the paper better
  2. Please explain clearly the purpose of your study in Introduction.
  3. In the introductory part, the phenomenon is not clear due to the absence of links to previous research
  4. This paper would significantly warrant the identification of the focus of the paper earlier than what has been presented
  5. The introduction provides does not a relevant background information
  6. The Introduction is too long, please skip the “flow of the paper”, you don’t have to write down that information

LITERATURE REVIEW

  1. In the literature study, this research is very weak justification due to previous research does not support, please complete detailed gap analysis related to this research
  2. The literature review should have a last small subsection as “Research Gaps”. Here the authors should speak of that their research is unique and much similar work has not been done before. There is a gap in the current literature and so they are working in this area. This should be specified before writing the research objectives.
  3. The paper demonstrates some understanding of the literature in the field but, in my opinion, the authors have not consulted and presented a sufficient overview of the frameworks on succession at all. There is some consideration of the percentages of women-owned companies in the Indonesian economy but, again, not sufficient. The authors use old US and OECD data on the growth of women-owned companies
  4. The literature would greatly benefit from the inclusion of more ‘current’ family business stats than what was presented from the xx(year) findings on page 3.
  5. The literature needs to be ancillary to highlight how this has been addressed so far and what novelty your paper brings to the academic community.
  6. The literature on xxxx is limited and key studies have not been addressed. Especially, crucial issues in xxxxx are not discussed.

METHODOLOGY

  1. Under methodology, the sample size is questionable. Only 21 scientists are studied. A sample size of at least 500 is more appropriate. Statistical hypothesis testing should be done. Mathematical proofs on why the methodology is used should be provided. This will make the paper more robust
  2. Please explain why did you choose the qualitative approach in your study.
  3. The methodology discussion is not adequate and needs to be reworked and justified. Why these companies? If there is a focus on a particular sector of the economy in Indonesia, the authors should present sector data and why that sector is an appropriate context for this research.
  4. The methodology discussion is also inadequate – I have no sense of the overall research design and the rationale for choosing the ten cases presented in the paper.
  5. The selection of the sample requires more thinking: especially as 4/10 of the respondents are father-to-son family businesses
  6. The methodology is ‘woolly‘. A stronger justification of the methodological approach used is needed (perhaps linking it to the literature review).
  7. The sample selection also presents limitation. For example, if this is a paper about opportunity for females in xxxx, why xxxx?

DISCUSSION, FINDING, INTERPRETATION

  1. Please high light the significance of the work based on discussion in Table 2
  2. In the finding section, complete the results of this study with the results of previous studies whether they are the same or not
  3. The resulting framework proposed needs to be discussed in more detail to help the reader in distinguishing it from Walsh’s

CONCLUSION, FUTURE RESEARCH, RECOMMENDATION

  1. In the Conclusion, you wrote “Technology change has an important role especially SAP technology change. Technology changes will affect the actor and its roles.”. Please explain in more detail the logic of writing the statement based on the results of your study.
  2. Please explain in more detail the recommendations for the further researches, especially the first one ==>“The findings of this study can be used as a framework for further researchers who are interested
    in examining the performance of go public banking in Indonesia.” (page 11).
  3. The paper needs some direction/recommendations for key stakeholders as that is lacking from the conclusion
  4. The conclusion is lacking a reflection on the objective of the paper and an answer to how the paper answered the key question.
  5. Key recommendations could be made based on the findings of the practitioner paper.

STRUCTURE

  1. The paper should follow the format:
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Literature Review
  • Theoretical Framework
  • Research Methodology
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References

    This will help the audience understand the paper better

  2. Please write the paper in accordance with the journal guideline, especially how to write the figure title and references.

  3. Heading and Subheadings should be numbered

REFERENCES

  • Please use the consistent citation process for the following sentences –>
    • “Oliver Gassmann, Karolin Frankenberger, and Michaela Csik apply the concept of the business model consists of four dimensions: Who, What, How and Value (Gassmann, Frankenberger, & Csik, 2013).” (Page 1).
    • “CompTIA defines managed services as management, monitoring, and maintenance of the network, software, hardware, and IT services related to external organizations (CompTIA, 2014).”
      (Page 2)
  • Please mention in more detail the source/reference of the following sentence  –>
    “Researchers from the University of St. Gallen recently presented St. Gallen Business Model Navigator.” (Page 1).
  • The referencing requires more detailed attention as there are several omissions and mistakes.
  • Referencing is not at a publishable standard. Some references are missing, others are not properly acknowledged.

LANGUAGE

  • Please improve the grammar mistakes in the manuscript. For example: Modify from “One of Non-TLK Group customer” to “One of Non-TLK Group customers” on page 5.
  • Please improve the typos in the manuscript. For example:
    Erase “(“ before the final paragraph of page 1.Add “.” after “Four customer segments had been identified” in page 4.
  • Please use the present tense on the abstract and methodology.
  • Please modify the grammar mistakes in the manuscript. For example, please modify ==>From“Then, it can be concluded that all of the variables has a good reliability.”To“Then, it can be concluded that all variables have good reliabilities.” (page 6).
  • The paper is written in clear language but the authors must pay attention to sentence structure and reorder the logic of the document completely so that the major focus is on the conceptual material in Section 7. Language accuracy is also an issue in several areas where conventions are flouted, particularly in the use of definite and indefinite articles. On page 2, Line 35, what does (tbk) mean?

TABLE

  • Combine tables 1 and 2 into 1 distribution of a number of persons (n) collaborating per publication table.
  • Combine tables 3 and 4 into 1 distribution of position (r) of authors listed in a publication table. This will help your reader understand your data better.
    IW’s 4th paper data is missing in Table 1: Distribution of the number of persons (n) collaborating per publication. EN’s 26th paper data is missing in Table 2: Distribution of the number of persons (n) collaborating per publication. This should be provided to ensure the methodology used is correct.
  • It would be more insightful if the Authors add discussion as a result of Table 1 and Table 2.

ORIGINALITY

  • An interesting angle is put on the paper in that it examines succession planning from an Indonesian perspective.
  • There is originality in organizing the paper and there is a lot of commendable clarity in handling the entire draft with expertise and deftness, dexterity and precision.
  • There is originality in the choice of the topic and subject of discussion as well.
  • This paper offered some interesting insights in the life of family businesses in Indonesia.
  • I am however not convinced it is ready for publication at this stage. The paper requires a central argument
  • The only factor of originality proposed is the location (i.e. Indonesia). However, there is  limited effort in presenting the country as a ‘case’. There is lack of information on family businesses in the country and some measures of cultural factors (Hofstede). The latter, however, are not fully discussed. In one passage, we read also that Java is culturally different from the rest of Indonesia, but no further discussion is offered.

EXTRA COMMENTS

  1. This working paper is recommended published in the journal as long as it complements the terms of the conditions that must be corrected
  2. The paper is excellently drafted.
  3. The topic … TOE … is very interesting and pretty much out-of-the-ordinary.
  4. Results are very neat and clearly follows the link with the hypotheses.
  5. The paper must be accepted for the conference.
  6. The paper has an overall appeal and is quite interesting.
  7. Good work by the authors and good initiative indeed.
  8. Thank you for submitting this article for publication. I agree that t…..xxxxx. Similarly, the case of ……. is also of interest. However, the paper suffers from a number of weaknesses that would need to be addressed before considering publication.First, the authors need to augment the literature and incorporate a substantive discussion of the succession frameworks in the family business field. Currently, the literature on the topic is extensive and broad – the paper would benefit from going deep and reviewing that literature as the theoretical framework. Currently, that framework appears on page 22 and in Section 7. This is a strange location for the main conceptual framework. The paper is weak on national data for Indonesia and for the USA (where such data is used). Data on US women-owned companies dates back to 1996 – the OECD data is also very dated. Summarize the Indonesian context in the form of a table and provide a clearer picture of the country. The paper mentions primogeniture and culture but having read the paper I have no clear sense of the history of primogeniture in Indonesia. The methodology discussion is also inadequate – I have no sense of the overall research design and the rationale for choosing the ten cases presented in the paper.
  9. The actual Recommendation (e.g., recommend to Accept, Accept Pending Revisions, Reconsider After Major Revisions, or Reject) should not be stated in this paragraph, which is sent to the authors, but should be indicated separately in the drop-down list. It may also be stated in the separate box called ‘‘Confidential Note to the Editor.’’
    However, the overall tenor of this paragraph should support the reviewer’s recommendation.
  10. Please justify any choices available in your study design (e.g., choices of imaging techniques, analytic tools, or statistical methods)
Share this lessonShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestPrint this page

4 thoughts on “Cara Me-Review sebuah Paper [Pemula]

    1. Halo Dinillah..disini shareaddict Manda menjawab, dalam mengisi list reviewer biasanya ada persyaratan. Contoh syarat 4 reviewer dimana reviewer tersebut bukan berasal dari satu afiliasi sama kamu, antar reviewer pun harus beda afiliasi, dan dilihat juga keahliannya sama relevan atau gak. Kalau kamu punya kenalan yang memang bersedia, sebaiknya tulis saja dulu, karena terkadang reviewer yang tidak mengenali penulis, emailnya bisa ketumpuk, dan lama dalam me-review…happy sharing..semoga menjawab

Leave a Reply