1. Menghindari Penolakan Editors dan Reviewers
Agoes Soegianto
Departemen Biologi
Fakultas sains dan teknologi
Universitas airlanga
Diambil dari:
Gustaf Olsson dan Helmut Kroiss
Editor-in-Chief, Water Science & Technology
MJIIT, UTM, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, September 2017

2. Editors and reviewers look for..
• Relevance to the journal scope and objectives
• Originality – what’s new about subject, treatment or results?
• Clarity and quality of writing – does it communicate well?
• Conclusions – are they valid and objective?
• Good, short title, keywords and abstract

3. Editors & reviewers look for..
• Does the paper – provide insight into an important issue? – tell a good story?
• Is the paper interesting for an international audience?
• Does the insight from the paper stimulate new, important questions?
• Is there a high probability that the paper will be read and cited by others?

4. Editor’s view: a good paper (1)
• Is driven or inspired by technological, industrial, management, environmental, economical or social challenges;
• Contributes to new scientific methods or new applications of known methods;
• The scientific methods to get the results are appropriate

5. Editor’s view: a good paper (2)
• Describes new directions and early findings
• Triggers constructive discussions – gives a high probability for citation;
• Contains adequate references, good illustrations and tables;

6. Editor’s view: a good paper (3)
Good description of the work
– Clear language
– Good graphs
– Clear problem and objective statements
– Clear message of the results
– Easily comprehend - good flow of explanations
– Specific information
– The story is built up consistently
– No repetitions or redundancy in the paper

7. Editor’s view: a good paper (4)
Description - Materials and methods:
• Based on the paper: can another researcher repeat the research?
• Are the experimental procedures accurately described?
• Comparability of data
• Relevant and justified results
• Validation of the approach

8. Editor’s view: a good paper (5)
• Advances the level of knowledge
• One message – reliable and valid
– Answering a specific question
• Not too long (check instructions for authors!)
– Typical length 6000 – 8000 words, including figures and references

9. Editor’s view: a good paper (6)
• Good literature review
– Relevant literature
– Makes it possible to compare results
• Encourages communication of research

10. Editor’s view: reasons for rejection (1)
• There is insufficient new and interesting information in the paper
• The paper is too commercial (essentially advertising a product or a company)
• The paper’s English is too poor to be understood by an international readership – use the 'spell- check' and 'grammar-check‘ functions of your word processor.

11. Editor’s view: reasons for rejection (2)
• Local issues (water quality in Skudai river etc.) with insufficient interest for an international audience
• Lack of history on the topic (insufficient literature references)
• Lack of discussion or conclusion
• Too few references or mostly self-references

12. Editor’s view: reasons for rejection (3)
• Data collection without any comparisons
• Lack of quantitative information (data, tables etc)
• Too long (consult the journal’s Instructions to Authors)
• Findings not generalised or used to build theory
• Will probably not be cited

14. Upfront rejection - why
• Some submissions are intrinsically unsuitable for publication.
• It is helpful to all concerned if they can be screened out from the review procedures straight away.
• This avoids wasting the time and effort of authors, editors and reviewers.

15. Upfront rejection 1 – format criteria
• Content matter outside the scope of the journal
• The English is too poor to be readily understood
• Not properly structured as a scientific paper
– Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion
– Must include: Abstract, keyword, conclusion
• Inadequate reference list

16. Upfront rejection 2 – format criteria
• Paper too short (< about words) – probably too little information
• Paper too long (> 5000 words) – Mostly asked to shorten the paper – There may be special reasons, then motivate!
• Paper promotes a commercial product

17. Upfront rejection 3 – editorial criteria
• Lack of novelty (including repetition of well established results)
• Lack of interest (triviality of results)
• Incoherence of work or its description
• Plagiarism (Serious! Should be reported to the Journal Office)

18. References (1) • It is important to refer to what has been done earlier. Document your findings and sources. • You can of course refer to your own works but is important to refer to > 5 other references. If most of the references are your own papers – it is a reason for rejection • Typically references. Not too many!

19. References (2) Make sure that you have recent references as well as the original references – at least one reference from the last 5 years • The references should be understood by an international audience (i.e. English) • Should be retrievable by a librarian!

20. Terima kasih