[Admin]

Worksheet 2.2 Comparing Interview Insights with Journal Guidelines

1. Review the provided materials carefully.
2. Compare the content with the insights you gained from your interviews. Consider:
   • How do your interview findings align or differ from the journal guidelines?
   • What practices or standards in the sample articles reflect (or contrast with) what you observed during interviews?
   • Are there any challenges or strategies mentioned in your interviews that are addressed in the materials?
3. Identify key similarities, differences, and patterns that indicate key characteristics of high-quality scientific writing?

[Aulia Rahma Nurlita]

Aulia Rahma Nurlita (22220057)
Based on my analysis, all the sources actually have similar views on how to write a good scientific article.

1. Following Journal Guidelines
From my interview with Miss Gartika, I learned that good scientific writing starts with finding a clear research gap, following the right structure, and avoiding plagiarism. This is similar to the guidelines from IJAL and Cakrawala Pendidikan, which highlight the IMRaD format, APA citation style, and originality. In short, having a good idea isn’t enough if the paper doesn’t follow the journal’s rules.

2. Learning from a Sample Article
When I read the IJAL article titled “BIPA teachers’ perspectives on Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL)”, I could really see how the guidelines were applied. The abstract, introduction, methods, and discussion are clearly written following the IMRaD structure. The article also connects its findings with previous studies, just like what Miss Gartika said about keeping coherence and linking theories.

3. Challenges and How to Solve Them
Miss Gartika also mentioned that many writers face problems like writer’s block, time management, and plagiarism. She suggested using tools like Quiltbolt or Grammarly, but reminded me to use them ethically. While journal guidelines focus more on technical things, her advice felt more practical and realistic.

4. Similarities and Common Patterns
From the interview, journal guidelines, and sample article, I noticed that all of them emphasize the IMRaD structure and the use of clear, formal, but easy-to-understand language. Common issues like time and formatting can be managed by having good planning and structure. The quality of a paper depends on originality, clarity, and coherence.

Conclusion:
The interview shows real experiences, the journal guidelines explain the rules, and the sample article shows how those rules work in practice. From all of them, I can conclude that scientific writing isn’t just about having a great idea, it’s also about writing clearly, ethically, and consistently.

[widyaoaulia88]

Widya Aulia Octavia
22220089

Based on my review of journal guidelines, sample journal articles, and my interview with Miss Cynthia regarding journal writing, I have concluded the following:

First, when we have an idea about what is currently trending, we create an initial draft. We read many similar references related to that idea or research topic, then we try to analyze what the revisions might look like, essentially, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each published article. Only after that do we try to compose our own article. We must decide where we want to publish and then adjust our writing according to the journal’s required template. This includes determining what to write in the abstract, introduction, methodology, results, and discussion sections. It is important to choose a trending topic and ensure that referenced research is no older than five years. The writing process should include pre-writing, drafting, revising, and editing. Reading numerous previous studies helps develop a natural writing feel. We should combine manual paraphrasing and with AI assistance, as relying solely on tools like Grammarly and QuillBot can sometimes make the journal feel unnatural.

[Yanuarti Apsari]

your answers are comprehensive

[haifandn]

Haifa Nenden Andriyana
22220064

1. The results of the interview with Miss Gartika are very much in line with the guidelines of the IJAL and Cakrawala Pendidikan. Both the interview results and the journal guidelines emphasize the importance of writing according to a clear structure, IMRaD (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion). Miss Gartika explained that before starting to write, a researcher should first identify a research gap by reading many previous studies through platforms like Google Scholar and Elicit. This insight aligns with the journal guideline that requires writers to present the background of the problem, the research gap, and end with a statement of the research objective or focus of the study. In addition, novelty is also a determining factor in the quality of an article. This is also emphasized in the Cakrawala Pendidikan journal guidelines, which require to display of research novelty and useful innovations.

2. The sample article I analyzed, “BIPA teachers’ perspectives on Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL): Attitudes, benefits and challenges in teaching Indonesian as a foreign language”, reflects the same principles that Miss Gartika mentioned. For example, the Introduction of the article presents the background, the gap, and the research objectives. Additionally, the article adheres to the IMRaD format. The discussion section also links the findings to relevant theories, which matches Miss Gartika’s statement that writers must deeply understand theoretical relationships among variables.

3. Yes, several challenges mentioned by Miss Gartika are reflected in both the Cakrawala Pendidikan author guidelines and the sample article “BIPA teachers’ perspectives on Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL): Attitudes, benefits and challenges in teaching Indonesian as a foreign language”. Challenges she mentioned were writer’s block, which often leads to high plagiarism scores. The guidelines for the similarity index for plagiarism check are pegged at 20%. Miss Gartika also mentioned the challenge in designing or adapting research instruments for topics that have not been widely studied. The sample article “BIPA teachers’ perspectives on Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL): Attitudes, benefits and challenges in teaching Indonesian as a foreign language” demonstrates how writers explain the instrument validation and reliability testing process in the Methodology section. Another challenge Miss Gartika mentioned is choosing a topic that the writer truly master.

4. Based on the comparison between the interview insights, journal guidelines, and the sample article, I found that high-quality scientific writing shares several important characteristics. Both Miss Gartika and the journals emphasize novelty and structure in writing. A good article should follow the IMRaD format, have a research topic problem. The main difference is that journal guidelines emphasize writing format, while the interview highlights about process of writing, the challenges of writing, and the tools that can help in the process of writing.
From this, I conclude that a high-quality research article must combine the following format (IMRaD) with rhetorical movement.

[Yanuarti Apsari]

Several of your responses are incomplete and do not fully address the questions.

[suci samiarti]

Suci Samiarti
22220104

1. Review the provided materials carefully.
Based on the review of the author guidelines and sample journal articles, it is clear that the process of writing a scientific paper must strictly follow academic structure and ethics. Each journal provides specific requirements that include formatting, citation style, and plagiarism limits. The common structure used is IMRaD, which requires writers to organize ideas systematically and logically. This aligns with Miss Gartika’s perspective, who also emphasizes the importance of following journal structures and understanding the function of each section so that the writing appears coherent, focused, and easy for readers to follow.

2a. How do your interview findings align or differ from the journal guidelines?
The interview findings with Miss Gartika show a strong alignment with the journal guidelines. She stated that the process of writing a scientific article begins with identifying a research gap and ensuring novelty, which are also essential points mentioned in the author guidelines. Both stress the importance of originality and clarity in structure. The main difference lies in focus: the guidelines emphasize technical aspects such as formatting, writing style, and citation, while Miss Gartika focuses more on the academic thinking process, including understanding theories, developing ideas, and maintaining consistency between the research questions and results.

2b. What practices or standards in the sample articles reflect (or contrast with) what you observed during interviews?
The practices observed in the sample article strongly reflect Miss Gartika’s explanations. In the article, the introduction directly highlights the main issue and the research gap, just as she suggested to help readers quickly understand the direction of the research. The discussion section also demonstrates an analysis that connects the findings with theoretical concepts, consistent with Miss Gartika’s advice on showing theoretical understanding in the discussion. However, there is a slight difference: Miss Gartika emphasized the importance of the process, such as using AI tools or literature mapping during writing, while the article itself does not display these aspects since they belong to the preparation stage before publication.

2c. Are there any challenges or strategies mentioned in your interviews that are addressed in the materials?
Some challenges mentioned by Miss Gartika, such as writer’s block, difficulty in determining variables, and maintaining originality, are indirectly addressed in the author guidelines. The journal guidelines highlight the importance of clarity, originality, and compliance with publication ethics all of which serve as strategies to overcome these challenges. Additionally, Miss Gartika suggested that writers should read more references and use AI tools wisely to help generate ideas and improve language quality. These strategies reinforce the idea presented in the materials that the quality of an article is determined not only by the final result but also by the systematic, critical, and ethical writing process.

3. Identify key similarities, differences, and patterns that indicate key characteristics of high-quality scientific writing.
From the comparison between the interview with Miss Gartika, the author guidelines, and the sample article, several key patterns emerge. The characteristics of high-quality scientific writing include clear novelty, consistent IMRaD structure, strong connection between theory and data, and adherence to academic standards and publication ethics. The similarities among all sources lie in emphasizing originality, coherence, and clarity of arguments. The difference is that Miss Gartika focuses more on the human and reflective aspects of the writing process such as managing ideas, overcoming difficulties, and using technology while the guidelines and article concentrate more on the final product. These patterns indicate that high-quality scientific writing results from a combination of critical thinking, theoretical depth, and accuracy in following journal standards, as emphasized by Miss Gartika.

[Yanuarti Apsari]

To Haifa:
Your responses are comprehensive and well explained

[mutiaraazny1234]

Mutiara Azny (22220088)

1. From the interview with Mr. Yana, several ideas clearly align with the journal guidelines. Both emphasize that a good scientific article must show strong coherence between each section – from the introduction to the discussion – and that every part must contribute to one main idea. He also underlines the importance of literacy and continuous reading of published journals, which is consistent with guidelines requiring writers to use recent and credible sources.
However, there are some differences in practice. While journal guidelines strictly instruct writers to follow the template, structure, and word limits from the beginning, Mr. Yana suggests that writers should focus on developing ideas first, and only later adjust their manuscript to the specific journal’s format. In addition, his suggestion to change journals when reviewers’ comments conflict with the writer’s viewpoint reflects a more flexible and practical mindset than the formal guidelines, which encourage negotiation and revision instead of moving to another outlet.

2. Many practices observed in sample journal articles reflect what Mr. Yana discussed in the interview. For Instance, the identification of research gaps in the introduction clearly shows awareness of differences between existing studies and the researcher’s focus – an idea Mr. Yana emphasized as essential. The sample articles also show the integration of relevant literature throughout the discussion, which aligns with his view that critical analysis should always be supported by references.
However, some contrasting practices appear as well. In published journal articles, citation tools and plagiarism checkers are systematically used, while Mr. Yana focuses more on understanding the editor and reviewer’s expertise and maintaining ethical writing behavior rather than relying heavily on software. Additionally, sample articles usually apply the journal format from the start, while Mr. Yana recommends adjusting formatting only after the writing process is complete.

3. Several challenges mentioned by Mr. Yana are also discussed, directly or indirectly, in journal materials. One major challenge he mentions is starting the writing process, which he overcomes by simply “writing whatever comes to mind first” before revising and consulting with experienced authors. This strategy corresponds to the drafting and revising steps described in academic writing guides. Another difficulty he identifies is handling feedback from reviewers and editors. Journal materials also provide strategies for this, such as carefully responding to comments and improving clarity and methodology before resubmission.
Furthermore, both the interview and the materials highlight the importance of ethical writing. Mr. Yana warns about using AI-generated text and stresses the need for paraphrasing and referencing from real, published articles. This is consistent with the journal’s emphasis on originality, proper citation, and avoiding plagiarism. His advice to strengthen academic literacy and maintain ethical awareness echoes the same standards promoted in formal journal guidelines.

4. From both the interview with Mr. Yana and the journal materials, it can be seen that high-quality scientific writing is built on literacy, coherence, and ethics. Both emphasize that every section of an article must connect clearly to the main idea and be supported by relevant, recent references. They also highlight the importance of originality, critical thinking, and honesty in citation and paraphrasing.
However, there are some differences. Mr. Yana focuses more on flexibility and process, encouraging writers to develop their ideas freely first and adjust to journal standards later, while journal guidelines stress structure, format, and precision from the beginning. His advice is more practical and experience-based, while journal rules are more formal and technical.
A clear pattern that appears from both sources is that good writing requires continuous reading, revising, and reflecting. Writers must combine creativity with ethical awareness to produce clear, coherent, and original work. In short, high-quality scientific writing results from the balance between technical accuracy and intellectual discipline.

Conclusion:
Based on the results of the interview, it can be concluded that success in writing scientific articles largely depends on consistent reading habits, critical thinking skills, ad a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of academic publication. Writers must maintain a balance between originality of ideas, adherence to scientific standards, and the ethical use of technology. Strong academic literacy and a systematic writing process serve as the key foundations for producing high-quality scholarly works that are competitive at both national and international levels.

[Yanuarti Apsari]

To SUci:
This is a well-developed and coherent response. You clearly explain how the article reflects Miss Gartika’s advice, particularly in the structure of the introduction and the depth of the discussion section. What makes your answer especially interesting is the observation of a notable difference between the interview data and the article — specifically, Miss Gartika’s emphasis on the writing process (such as the use of AI tools or literature mapping) versus the article’s focus on the final written product. This shows your critical awareness of how academic practices can differ between preparation and publication stages. Well done for identifying this nuanced contrast.

[hanifahnurula2802]

1. Following Journal Standards
From the interview, Miss Gartika said that before writing a paper, we really need to find a research gap and make a strong framework first. She also reminded me that plagiarism is a big no, and we have to follow the journal’s structure. I think that’s true because journals like Cakrawala Pendidikan or ELTIN Journal also focus on IMRaD format, correct citations, and good organization.

2. What I Observed from the Sample Article
When I read the IJAL article about “BIPA Teachers’ Perspectives on Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL)”, I could see how the theory and guidelines are applied in real writing. The introduction flows well, the methods are clear, and the discussion connects perfectly with previous studies. It reminded me of what Miss Gartika said — that a good paper always links results with theory and keeps the discussion consistent and logical.

3. Challenges and Tips
Miss Gartika also talked about some real struggles, like writer’s block or high similarity score. She suggested using Grammarly or Quillbot, but not depending too much on them. Journal rules usually only talk about format, but her advice feels more practical and helpful for beginners like us.

4. Common Things I Found
From all the sources, I can see that good writing needs three main things: clear structure, original ideas, and consistency. We have to plan our writing, stay focused, and make sure everything connects logically. A good paper isn’t just about data, but about how we explain it in a simple and understandable way.

[Yanuarti Apsari]

To: Mutiara
This is an insightful and well-organized analysis. You effectively identify how Mr. Yana’s perspectives align with journal guidelines, especially in emphasizing coherence, literacy, and ethical writing. What makes your response particularly strong is your attention to the contrast between Mr. Yana’s flexible, process-oriented approach and the journals’ formal, rule-based standards. This observation shows critical understanding of how academic writing involves balancing creativity and compliance. Overall, your synthesis demonstrates depth, clarity, and an excellent grasp of both theoretical and practical aspects of scholarly writing.

[alzurapratiwi]

Danisya Al Jura Pratiwi
22220112

Based on the interview with Miss Cynantia and the analysis of the Journal Guidelines and Sample Journal Article from the Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), it can be understood that writing a scientific journal article is not merely about reporting research findings, but rather an academic thinking process that requires accuracy, strategy, and a deep understanding of ethics and publication standards.

1. From the interview, Miss Cynantia emphasized the importance of reading numerous references before writing in order to build a strong theoretical foundation. This aligns with the Journal Guidelines, which highlight the need for a logical article structure supported by relevant literature review. Professional awareness also appeared in her explanation that academic publication is not only an administrative obligation but also an act of responsibility and contribution to scientific development.

2. In terms of ethics, she stressed the importance of academic honesty by avoiding plagiarism, whether through manual paraphrasing or using digital tools that are later revised by the writer. This principle corresponds with the IJAL guidelines, which emphasize originality, integrity, and adherence to publication ethics. Thus, both the interview and the journal guidelines view academic honesty as the main foundation of high-quality scientific writing.

3. From a technical perspective, Miss Cynantia explained that each journal has its own writing style and formatting requirements. This is consistent with the IJAL author guidelines, which clearly describe article structure, reference style, and formatting rules. The ability to adapt to these requirements becomes an important factor in successful publication.

4. Furthermore, the interview highlighted the importance of argumentative ability and coherence. According to Miss Cynantia, writing logically and coherently comes from consistent reading and continuous practice. This is reflected in the IJAL sample article, where the author presents clear arguments and integrates theoretical concepts with research findings smoothly. Both sources show that good academic writing is not only scientifically valid but also communicative and easy to follow.

5. In terms of relevance, Miss Cynantia stated that research topics should follow current academic trends to make them more meaningful and engaging. This idea is reflected in the IJAL article “BIPA Teachers’ Perspectives on Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL): Attitudes, Benefits, and Challenges in Teaching Indonesian as a Foreign Language”, which discusses digital learning—an issue highly relevant in today’s educational context.

In conclusion, high-quality scientific writing requires a clear understanding of journal structure and formatting standards, academic integrity, logical reasoning, and topic relevance. By combining the insights from the interview, journal guidelines, and sample article.

[Yanuarti Apsari]

To: Haifa
This is a clear and well-organized reflection. You successfully connect Miss Gartika’s advice with the journal standards and show how those ideas are applied in a real article. What stands out is your attention to practical challenges, such as dealing with writer’s block and using tools like Grammarly or Quillbot — a point that highlights a real-world contrast between formal journal rules and actual writing practices. Your conclusion also summarizes key qualities of good writing effectively. Overall, this response shows strong comprehension and thoughtful analysis.

[Nadia Putri Azzahra]

Nadia Putri Azzahra
22220111

1. Based on an interview with Miss Cynantia, who shared valuable insights about the process of writing a scientific article. According to her, writers should use recent and relevant references and organize their ideas in a clear, logical order. Motivation in writing may come from both personal interest and academic requirements. To maintain originality, Miss Cynantia suggested using manual or tool-based paraphrasing—such as with Parafrasite—and selecting suitable synonyms.

2. She emphasized that reading extensively helps writers find a research gap and maintain a coherent flow in their writing. In team projects, task division is essential, where each member contributes to research, data analysis, or writing. Miss Cynantia also highlighted the usefulness of AI tools like Grammarly and Quillbot for revising and editing.

3. Furthermore, she advised that writing should be done gradually through pre-writing, revising, and editing, while following a personal schedule or timeline to stay consistent. The conclusion must answer the research questions clearly, and the title should reflect the problem, core issue, and proposed solution.

In essence, Miss Cynantia underlined that good academic writing requires careful planning, collaboration, and attention to research trends to make the article systematic, relevant, and engaging for readers.

[Yanuarti Apsari]

To: Danisya
This is an excellent and comprehensive response. You clearly connect Miss Cynantia’s insights with the IJAL guidelines and sample article, demonstrating strong analytical and critical thinking skills. The discussion about academic honesty, adaptability to journal requirements, and the importance of coherence shows a deep understanding of both ethical and technical dimensions of academic writing. What makes your answer particularly strong is the observation about relevance and current trends, which highlights how good research must also respond to contemporary academic contexts. Overall, this is a well-structured and insightful reflection that integrates theory and practice effectively.

[alzurapratiwi]

Danisya Al Jura Pratiwi
22220112

Based on the interview with Miss Cynantia and the analysis of the Journal Guidelines and Sample Journal Article from the Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL), it can be understood that writing a scientific journal article is not merely about reporting research findings, but rather an academic thinking process that requires accuracy, strategy, and a deep understanding of ethics and publication standards.

1. From the interview, Miss Cynantia emphasized the importance of reading numerous references before writing in order to build a strong theoretical foundation. This aligns with the Journal Guidelines, which highlight the need for a logical article structure supported by relevant literature review. Professional awareness also appeared in her explanation that academic publication is not only an administrative obligation but also an act of responsibility and contribution to scientific development.

2. In terms of ethics, she stressed the importance of academic honesty by avoiding plagiarism, whether through manual paraphrasing or using digital tools that are later revised by the writer. This principle corresponds with the IJAL guidelines, which emphasize originality, integrity, and adherence to publication ethics. Thus, both the interview and the journal guidelines view academic honesty as the main foundation of high-quality scientific writing.

3. From a technical perspective, Miss Cynantia explained that each journal has its own writing style and formatting requirements. This is consistent with the IJAL author guidelines, which clearly describe article structure, reference style, and formatting rules. The ability to adapt to these requirements becomes an important factor in successful publication.

4. Furthermore, the interview highlighted the importance of argumentative ability and coherence. According to Miss Cynantia, writing logically and coherently comes from consistent reading and continuous practice. This is reflected in the IJAL sample article, where the author presents clear arguments and integrates theoretical concepts with research findings smoothly. Both sources show that good academic writing is not only scientifically valid but also communicative and easy to follow.

5. In terms of relevance, Miss Cynantia stated that research topics should follow current academic trends to make them more meaningful and engaging. This idea is reflected in the IJAL article “BIPA Teachers’ Perspectives on Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL): Attitudes, Benefits, and Challenges in Teaching Indonesian as a Foreign Language”, which discusses digital learning—an issue highly relevant in today’s educational context.

In conclusion, high-quality scientific writing requires a clear understanding of journal structure and formatting standards, academic integrity, logical reasoning, and topic relevance. By combining the insights from the interview, journal guidelines, and sample article.

[fricianda1712]

• This reply was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by fricianda1712.
• This reply was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by fricianda1712.

[fricianda1712]

[fricianda1712]

Fricianda Fahiya Denasta
22220082

1.Process of Writing and Publishing
Miss Cyanantia explained that the process starts from developing a research idea and reviewing previous studies that have similar or related topics. By reading many journal articles, writers can identify gaps and understand how to structure their own article. After drafting, the writer must decide which journal to submit to, check the template and author guidelines, and adjust the article according to the specific format. This shows that successful publication depends not only on good ideas but also on how the manuscript fits the journal’s unique style

2.Ethical Awareness and Paraphrasing Strategy
She strongly emphasized the importance of academic honesty. To avoid plagiarism, she uses both manual paraphrasing and online tools but always rechecks and revises the text manually to ensure naturalness and accuracy. This practice reflects the ethical principles mentioned in the IJAL guidelines, which require originality and integrity in every submission.

3. Argumentation and Coherence
According to Miss Cyanantia, building academic argumentation requires logical order, relevant references, and up-to-date sources. A good article must connect ideas smoothly between paragraphs. She mentioned that coherence can only be achieved through continuous reading and practice because by reading, writers learn the natural flow of academic writing.

4. Cognitive Awareness and Motivation
Miss Cyanantia also discussed cognitive awareness, stating that motivation to write often comes from two factors: genuine interest in research or the need to fulfill academic requirements. However, as writers continue producing work, they eventually develop their *research interest* and expertise in specific areas.

5. Revising and Editing Process
She described that after submitting, writers usually receive feedback from reviewers and must revise their articles according to suggestions within a limited time (usually one to two weeks). The revision stage helps ensure that the article becomes more coherent, accurate, and aligned with the journal’s standards.

6. Conclusion and Relevance
For her, a strong conclusion must answer the research questions and highlight the urgency and relevance of the study. She suggested that choosing trending or current issues, such as AI, curriculum innovation, or digital learning, makes an article more persuasive and meaningful for readers.

In conclusion, the interview with Miss Cyntia and the IJAL journal analysis reveal that writing a scientific article involves not only research and data but also ethical practice, structural awareness, logical reasoning, and sensitivity to academic trends. Both emphasize that scientific writing is a continuous process of drafting, revising, and learning to meet academic and professional publication standards.

[haldasalsabila707]

Halda Vidya Srikandi Salsabila
22220069

1. Read all the materials provided, including journal guidelines, sample articles, and interview results, to understand the structure, format, and principles of good scientific writing. Take note of important points, such as writing ethics, originality, IMRaD structure, and suggestions from reviewers or lecturers, so that they can be compared and analyzed with the interview findings.

2. a. From both the journal guidelines and my interview with Mr. Mu’man, they align in emphasizing the importance of originality and ethics in research writing. I learned from Mr. Mu’man’s statement the importance of avoiding plagiarism and checking similarity. Both sources, IJAL and Cakrawala Pendidikan, provide a clear academic structure following the IMRaD format (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion), in accordance with Mr. Mu’man’s explanation. In addition, they stress the importance of choosing a title relevant to the research and the need for proofreading and revisions based on reviewers’ feedback, in line with Mr. Mu’man’s suggestion to use Grammarly and peer review before submission.
b. In the BIPA article on DGBLL, the IMRaD structure is fully followed, and formal academic language is used, as advised by Mr. Mu’man, so that the research can be useful and easily applied in learning. This article also clearly demonstrates practical benefits for teachers and students, as Mr. Mu’man stated that research should have practical value. However, the BIPA article and the journal guidelines focus more on strong data and multiple scholarly sources, whereas Mr. Mu’man prioritizes direct experience and clear problems. The BIPA article also uses international literature, while Mr. Mu’man emphasizes reading many journal articles to identify research gaps.
c. Yes, there are.
Challenges: Mr. Mu’man mentioned difficulties in choosing the right topic, going through the revision process, and maintaining writing ethics such as avoiding plagiarism. In Cakrawala Pendidikan guidelines, challenges mainly involve revision and resubmission due to methodological errors and delayed reviews.
strategies: Mr. Mu’man uses proofreading and tools like AI and Grammarly to improve language, selects relevant topics based on classroom experience, and reads many journals to find research gaps—all of which align with academic journal requirements.

3. In the interview, good scientific writing has main characteristics that are similar, such as having a clear and organized structure, original writing without plagiarism, and coherence. From the interview, journal guidelines, and article examples, all indicate the importance of planning writing carefully, citing sources correctly, and connecting theory and data in a balanced manner. Both Mr. Mu’man’s interview and the DGBLL article emphasize that authors should be reflective and understand the relationship between theory and research findings. Furthermore, writing should be relevant, open to revision, and beneficial to the field of education, despite differences in practical approaches and format.

[ratihnurlitaniati]

Ratih Nurlita Niarti
22220063

1. From the interview with Ms. Gartika and the guidelines of Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL) and Cakrawala Pendidikan, there are many points that go hand in hand. Ms. Gartika explained that before starting to write, a researcher needs to find a research gap by reading a lot of previous studies through platforms like Google Scholar, Elicit, or ResearchRabbit. This step matches what both journals expect in their guidelines, every author should clearly explain the novelty, purpose, and gap of their research in the introduction.
The difference is that Ms. Gartika shared this from her experience as a writer who actually goes through the process, while the journal guidelines present it as a more formal requirement that must be followed for publication.

2. According to Ms. Gartika, a good article should follow the IMRaD structure (Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion). She also mentioned that it’s better to make the introduction straight to the point, focusing on specific variables instead of explaining something too general. This is consistent with how articles in IJAL and Cakrawala Pendidikan are organized, both use the IMRaD format and focus on clarity and logical flow in each section.
The difference lies in the tone. Ms. Gartika’s way of explaining sounds more flexible and focused on how to make writing interesting, while the sample journal articles follow a more formal, standardized academic style.

3. Yes, there are. Ms. Gartika mentioned several challenges writers often face, such as writer’s block, difficulties with paraphrasing, and creating or validating research instruments. To deal with these, she sometimes uses tools like Grammarly, QuillBot, or ChatGPT, but only for checking ideas or grammar, not for copying. Both IJAL and Cakrawala Pendidikan talk about similar concerns, especially in their ethical writing sections. They both require originality, a low plagiarism percentage (under 15–20%), and honesty in research reporting. So, what Ms. Gartika described in practice is directly related to the ethical standards found in the journal guidelines.

4. There are several patterns that can be seen from both the interview and the guidelines.
Similarities: All of them highlight the importance of novelty, structure, clarity, and ethics in academic writing. Both journals follow APA citation style and require strong organization, while Ms. Gartika also stressed that the writing should have depth and flow smoothly.
Differences: Ms. Gartika focused more on the real experiences of writing, like finding ideas, staying motivated, and dealing with writing problems, while the journal guidelines focus more on formal rules such as formatting, references, and structure.
Patterns of good writing: From both sides, it’s clear that a high-quality article is one that is original, relevant, well-structured, and written clearly while also following academic conventions.

Conclusion

To sum up, both Ms. Gartika’s insights and the two journal guidelines share the same goal, helping writers produce strong, original, and well-organized research articles. The interview gives a realistic view of the writing journey from an author’s perspective, while the journal guidelines show what editors and reviewers expect in published papers. When combined, both perspectives help students understand that successful academic writing requires not only creative ideas and novelty but also discipline in following academic and ethical standards.

[Yanuarti Apsari]

To: Halda
This section provides a thoughtful comparison of the challenges and strategies mentioned by Mr. Mu’man and those found in the Cakrawala Pendidikan guidelines. You clearly identify that while both recognize the difficulty of revisions, they focus on different aspects—Mr. Mu’man emphasizes personal challenges such as topic selection and maintaining writing ethics, whereas the journal guidelines highlight technical issues like methodological errors and delayed reviews. This distinction shows good analytical depth. Moreover, your explanation of strategies—using proofreading tools, selecting relevant topics, and reading widely—demonstrates an understanding of how practical efforts can align with academic standards. Overall, this is a well-balanced and insightful analysis.

[farahassyifagayo]

Farah Assyfa Gayo
22220053

1. After carefully reading the above material, I believe that the material on writing articles has been clearly conveyed. In addition, when compared to the results of the interviews that have been conducted, the material is consistent and correlates with the data or results of interviews that have been conducted with a lecturer who is an expert in the field of writing and publishing research articles. This lecturer is also a reviewer for the journal publication website named PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education) from IKIP Siliwangi. Therefore, there is no doubt about her credibility, capability, and expertise.

2a. Based on the results of an interview with Mrs. Aseptiana Parmawati, M.Pd, it was found that the statements or answers from the interview regarding the systematic writing and publication of research articles were in line with the writing guidelines of the IJAL (Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics) and Cakrawala Pendidikan Author Guidelines.
During the interview, the interviewee revealed that there are several important aspects that need to be considered and included when writing a research article. These aspects include the title of the research article, abstract, IMRaD (Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion), conclusion, acknowledgments (if necessary), and references. These aspects must be included in a research article because they have become an absolute or concrete template in the creation of scientific articles. This applies to templates issued by IJAL (Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics), Cakrawala Pendidikan Author Guidelines, or PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education) from IKIP Siliwangi. In addition, it is also important for writers to create and include citations and references from reliable sources that are relevant to the research article being written. The source also recommends that writers search for and read previous research articles from Google Scholar because it provides comprehensive, varied, and easy-to-use articles for writers. The source also revealed that one of the criteria for evaluating a research article is that its references include more than 15 different research articles that are consistent and relevant to the title of the article written by the author.

2b. I observed that in the sample article entitled “BIPA teachers’ perspectives on Digital Game-Based Language Learning (DGBLL): Attitudes, benefits, and challenges in teaching Indonesian as a foreign language,” the article writing standards were in line with the information disclosed by Mrs. Aseptiana Parmawati, M. Pd, as a reviewer and expert in scientific writing and publishing. The research article includes a research title, abstract, IMRaD, conclusion, and references.
However, I noticed that the number of words in the article title exceeded the ideal limit. According to information I obtained from Mrs. Aseptiana and IJAL, the title should contain 10-15 words, no more than that. Meanwhile, the title of the article contained 20 words, exceeding the limit. In addition, during the interview process and while reading the IJAL guidebook, I obtained information that the abstract should be written with a word count of 200-250 words. Meanwhile, I saw that the abstract in the article contained more than 250 words, namely 297 words to be exact. This number exceeds the word limit for writing an abstract.

2c. In an interview with Mrs. Aseptiana Parmawati, M. Pd, several challenges and strategies were revealed in writing and publishing a research article for writers. These include:
# Challenges
– Novice writers do not understand the suitability of their article content and tend to ignore or not even use the available templates.
– Creating and determining the title for a research article.
– Selecting, finding, and using relevant and up-to-date references (less than five years old).
– Novice writers tend to have difficulty understanding what to write in the research articles they are going to produce.
– Ensuring that the writing (research article) produced is suitable for publication.
– Ensuring that the structure of the scientific article (IMRaD) is appropriate.
– Determining the appropriate research subject and methods.
# Strategy
– Novice writers are encouraged to read many research articles that are relevant to the research they will conduct.
– If novice writers face major revisions from editors/reviewers, it is recommended that they focus on paying attention to and revising the sections marked for revision by the reviewers/editors.

3. # SIMILARITIES
Based on the results of an interview with Miss Aseptiana Parmawati, M. Pd, there are several similarities in perception with the IJAL journal writing guidelines that demonstrate the characteristics of high-quality scientific writing, including:
– High-quality research articles contain an interesting title, abstract, IMRaD (Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion), conclusion, and references.
– The abstract consists of 200-250 words, covering the background, objectives, research methods, and conclusions.
– In the introduction, the author clearly explains the background, research context, literature review, and research objectives explicitly.
– The methodology section covers the research design, participants, data collection, and data analysis.
– In the discussion section, the author explains the research results clearly, concisely, and in a way that is easy for readers to understand.
The APA 7th edition citation style is applied in the creation of citations and references in a research article.

# DIFFERENCES
There are no differences in the writing structure.

# KEY PATTERN
– Use the template provided, which includes an abstract, IMRaD (Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion), conclusion, and references.
– If there is an error and revisions are required, listen to your editor/reviewer and make the revisions as requested.

[anisanurarifah72]

Anisa Nur Arifah
22220061

1. Based on the interview with our lecture, Mr. Mu’man when compared with journal guidelines, its not much different. Many statements are aligned to the guidelines i found in IJAL and Cakrawala Jurnal. From the writing format, until the etchic we must consider. Its important and aligned with the lecture’s statement.
2. a. We gained information from our lecture, Mr. Mu’man. He told us clearly about writing and submitting a scientific article. We also compared the interview results with IJAL and Cendekiawan. He said that the common pattern using IMRAD (Introduction, Method, Result, and Discussion). But he also said, the most important thing is to read the previous journal. More journal with the relative yet same topic means more better. People excited with that type of topic, but more limited the topic means the topic are not really good, so people usually not really interested in that kind of topic, so the research are limited. But these statements are not aligned with the guidelines in the journal, because the guidelines mostly didn’t talk about the topic of the research, but more talk about the writing format and etchics. Our lecture also said, that every journal publisher had their own criteria to publish the journal so, but even the topic was good, the data was good, still it can be the reason for the journal to be decline if we are not following the criteria, also we must know the etic to write the journal and this statement are aligned with both of the journal guidelines.
b. After i read some criteria from IJAL and cakrawala pendidikan guideliness, i found similarities that align with my sample journal. I also tried to see a few journal as sample from IJAL itself. And most of it using the same main structure IMRAD, and the title is less than 15 words. They were using formal yet understandable writing and they were developed from previous study like some kind of gap,which are also alligned with what our lecture’s said.
c. Our lecture, Mr. Mu’man said that there are strategies to make article. We gained some tips that we must look at the problem in class at first. What is the problem, and what should we do to fixed that. After the problem and the topic gained, looking for the relevant article, read at least ten until twenty journals. It will help us a lot at gaining the inspiration and creating the gap. These gaps and real-life problem will help us a lot in the introduction structure. The structural components are basic, just using IMRAD. But in the method, he gave advised to take the easier one. He didn’t forget to reminded us to follow the journal guidelines and apply journal ethic, espescially when its ready to be published. But the challenges also exist. We must consider the data is true, the theory are valid by following the previous research, and the most challenging one is to lessen the plagiarism. We must be creative to create new innovation in learning.
3. Our lecture, Mr. Mu’man said that High-quality articles must have the ethic and it can be useful to other. It is the most important thing. We cannot do plagiarism or the worst is do manipulation to the data until create a conflicting in the article. Since we develop from the previous research, the score of plagiarsm will relativity high. So it is quite challenging to lower it. However, its part of key similarities in every journal publisher. The pattern to make high-quality journal based on our lecture is, We needed to be more creative, we should able to find the gap in every research and make the research useful. It will make our research is needed to the reader, and to make more accurate don’t forget to adding previous research statement (theory), and we must using logical flow. it means, in IMRAD from introduction, method, until the result and discussion must aligned and connected to each other. Not forget, the language we are using has to be formal, objective, understandable and profesional, it needed to be proofreading first before submitted. The differences with the low quality writing is most of them using general, overly casual style. All of these are also aligned with the journal guidelines.

[Delia Suci Maharani]

Delia Suci Maharani
22220079

1. In my interview with Miss Setya, she shared many valuable insights about the writing and publication process. According to her, the most difficult stage for writers is the very beginning — when they try to organize and express their ideas. She strongly emphasized the importance of creating a mind map outline before writing. This helps to make the ideas flow smoothly and keeps the paper well-structured. She also mentioned that a good research article should clearly answer its research questions, use proper academic language, and present data in a way that’s easy for readers to understand. Articles often get rejected because they don’t follow the journal’s template, have incomplete data, or contain plagiarism. Miss Setya highlighted the need for students to use tools like Grammarly, Quillbot, or Mendeley, but wisely, not to depend on them completely. For her, the abstract and methodology are the most crucial parts of a paper because they reflect the overall quality of the research. She also pointed out that international journals tend to be more innovative and have more diverse topics compared to national ones.

2. When comparing Miss Setya’s interview with the official guidelines of IJAL and Cakrawala Pendidikan, there are many similarities. Both journals require writers to follow a clear structure: Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. This matches Miss Setya’s emphasis on outlining and keeping the flow of ideas consistent. Her idea that a paper should answer its research questions aligns perfectly with the journals’ expectations — both IJAL and Cakrawala clearly state that a study must show a strong connection between the research questions, data, and results. She also talked a lot about clarity and readability. This is very similar to what both journals describe as coherence and academic quality. IJAL and Cakrawala both want papers that are easy to follow, logical, and well-connected between sections. Miss Setya’s concern about writers relying too much on AI tools like Google Translate isn’t directly mentioned in the journal guidelines, but it still relates to the journals’ rule about using proper and natural academic English. Another shared point is originality. She said that good articles offer something new or insightful, and this is exactly what both journals require, a contribution to knowledge or new perspectives. The only real difference is that Miss Setya focused more on the pre-writing process like idea mapping and planning while the journal guidelines focus more on technical writing standards and formatting.

3. From the interview, Miss Setya mentioned several common challenges students face:
* Difficulty in generating and organizing ideas.
* Relying too much on AI or translation tools.
* Failing to follow the journal’s template or format.
* Providing incomplete or weak data.
* Lack of experience or training in academic writing.

Most of these challenges are also indirectly reflected in the journal guidelines. For example, IJAL and Cakrawala both emphasize the need for accurate data presentation, correct structure, and academic integrity. However, the issue of overusing AI tools and lack of writing training are more modern challenges that the journals don’t specifically mention — they come more from Miss Setya’s personal observation as an editor and lecturer.

4. After comparing both sources, several clear patterns appear:
* Clear flow of ideas is essential, readers should easily understand the logic behind the writing.
* Research questions must be fully answered with valid and relevant data.
* Academic tone and proper language use make a strong impression on reviewers.
* Plagiarism and citation issues remain the biggest reasons for rejection.
* Abstract and methodology sections are the most influential parts for acceptance.
* Originality and contribution matter, great papers bring new ideas or perspectives.
* Preparation before writing (such as outlining and idea mapping) helps create more coherent and reader-friendly papers.

In short, Miss Setya’s insights match most of the expectations from IJAL and Cakrawala. The main difference is her stronger focus on the human and creative side of writing — how writers think, plan, and express their ideas — while journal guidelines mostly deal with formal structure and technical details.

5. From this comparison, I learned that high-quality scientific writing isn’t only about following a structure or using the right format. It’s also about clarity, logical flow, originality, and understanding the purpose of your research.

Both the interview and the journal guidelines show that good writing requires balance — between creativity and structure, between human thinking and digital tools, and between ideas and evidence. As Miss Setya said, “You have to do your research first before you write.”

[ririnrohimat8]

Based on my review of journal guidelines, sample journal articles, and my interview with Miss Setya regarding journal writing, I have concluded the following:

In general, the interview results emphasize the importance of having a clear flow of ideas and a well-organized structure in scientific writing. Both the researchers and the interviewees agreed that the main difficulties in writing lie in developing ideas, using correct grammar, and choosing appropriate words. In addition, good scientific writing should be able to answer research questions, use sufficient data, and be easily understood by readers.

From the interview results, several effective writing strategies can be concluded, such as the importance of creating an outline or mind map before writing, using natural and clear academic language, and ensuring that the data used truly support the research objectives.

Overall, high-quality scientific writing has several key characteristics: ideas that are logically and coherently arranged, a structure that follows the journal’s template, the use of accurate academic language, and content supported by sufficient data and easily understood by readers.

[ririnrohimat8]

Ririn Rohimat
22220094

In general, the interview results emphasize the importance of having a clear flow of ideas and a well-organized structure in scientific writing. Both the researchers and the interviewees agreed that the main difficulties in writing lie in developing ideas, using correct grammar, and choosing appropriate words. In addition, good scientific writing should be able to answer research questions, use sufficient data, and be easily understood by readers.

From the interview results, several effective writing strategies can be concluded, such as the importance of creating an outline or mind map before writing, using natural and clear academic language, and ensuring that the data used truly support the research objectives.

Overall, high-quality scientific writing has several key characteristics: ideas that are logically and coherently arranged, a structure that follows the journal’s template, the use of accurate academic language, and content supported by sufficient data and easily understood by readers.

[elmaida06]

The Result of Interview with Miss Setya
In general, the interview highlights the importance of maintaining a clear flow of ideas and a well-organized structure in scientific writing. Both the editor and the respondents agreed that the main challenges in writing academic articles lie in developing ideas, using correct grammar, and choosing appropriate vocabulary. Moreover, effective scientific writing should be able to answer research questions, use relevant and sufficient data, and be easily understood by readers.
From the interview, several effective writing strategies were identified, such as the importance of creating an outline or mind map before writing, using natural and coherent academic language, and ensuring that the data presented truly support the research objectives.
Overall, the characteristics of high-quality scientific writing include logical and coherent organization of ideas, a structure that follows the journal’s template, accurate and precise academic language, and content that is supported by sufficient data and clearly communicated to the readers.

[ninapermatasari12345]

Nina Permatasari
22220066

1. From the interview with Mr. Yana, several ideas clearly align with the journal guidelines. Both emphasize that a good scientific article must show strong coherence between each section – from the introduction to the discussion – and that every part must contribute to one main idea. He also underlines the importance of literacy and continuous reading of published journals, which is consistent with guidelines requiring writers to use recent and credible sources.
However, there are some differences in practice. While journal guidelines strictly instruct writers to follow the template, structure, and word limits from the beginning, Mr. Yana suggests that writers should focus on developing ideas first, and only later adjust their manuscript to the specific journal’s format. In addition, his suggestion to change journals when reviewers’ comments conflict with the writer’s viewpoint reflects a more flexible and practical mindset than the formal guidelines, which encourage negotiation and revision instead of moving to another outlet.

2. Many practices observed in sample journal articles reflect what Mr. Yana discussed in the interview. For Instance, the identification of research gaps in the introduction clearly shows awareness of differences between existing studies and the researcher’s focus – an idea Mr. Yana emphasized as essential. The sample articles also show the integration of relevant literature throughout the discussion, which aligns with his view that critical analysis should always be supported by references.
However, some contrasting practices appear as well. In published journal articles, citation tools and plagiarism checkers are systematically used, while Mr. Yana focuses more on understanding the editor and reviewer’s expertise and maintaining ethical writing behavior rather than relying heavily on software. Additionally, sample articles usually apply the journal format from the start, while Mr. Yana recommends adjusting formatting only after the writing process is complete.

3. Several challenges mentioned by Mr. Yana are also discussed, directly or indirectly, in journal materials. One major challenge he mentions is starting the writing process, which he overcomes by simply “writing whatever comes to mind first” before revising and consulting with experienced authors. This strategy corresponds to the drafting and revising steps described in academic writing guides. Another difficulty he identifies is handling feedback from reviewers and editors. Journal materials also provide strategies for this, such as carefully responding to comments and improving clarity and methodology before resubmission.
Furthermore, both the interview and the materials highlight the importance of ethical writing. Mr. Yana warns about using AI-generated text and stresses the need for paraphrasing and referencing from real, published articles. This is consistent with the journal’s emphasis on originality, proper citation, and avoiding plagiarism. His advice to strengthen academic literacy and maintain ethical awareness echoes the same standards promoted in formal journal guidelines.

4. From both the interview with Mr. Yana and the journal materials, it can be seen that high-quality scientific writing is built on literacy, coherence, and ethics. Both emphasize that every section of an article must connect clearly to the main idea and be supported by relevant, recent references. They also highlight the importance of originality, critical thinking, and honesty in citation and paraphrasing.
However, there are some differences. Mr. Yana focuses more on flexibility and process, encouraging writers to develop their ideas freely first and adjust to journal standards later, while journal guidelines stress structure, format, and precision from the beginning. His advice is more practical and experience-based, while journal rules are more formal and technical.
A clear pattern that appears from both sources is that good writing requires continuous reading, revising, and reflecting. Writers must combine creativity with ethical awareness to produce clear, coherent, and original work. In short, high-quality scientific writing results from the balance between technical accuracy and intellectual discipline.

Conclusion:
Based on the results of the interview, it can be concluded that success in writing scientific articles largely depends on consistent reading habits, critical thinking skills, ad a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of academic publication. Writers must maintain a balance between originality of ideas, adherence to scientific standards, and the ethical use of technology. Strong academic literacy and a systematic writing process serve as the key foundations for producing high-quality scholarly works that are competitive at both national and international levels.

[Kenny Ardanisa]

Hasil Wawancara dengan Ibu Setya

Secara umum, wawancara tersebut menyoroti pentingnya menjaga alur ide yang jelas dan struktur yang terorganisir dengan baik dalam penulisan ilmiah. Baik editor maupun responden sepakat bahwa tantangan utama dalam menulis artikel akademis terletak pada pengembangan ide, penggunaan tata bahasa yang benar, dan pemilihan kosakata yang tepat. Lebih lanjut, penulisan ilmiah yang efektif harus mampu menjawab pertanyaan penelitian, menggunakan data yang relevan dan memadai, serta mudah dipahami oleh pembaca.
Dari wawancara tersebut, beberapa strategi penulisan yang efektif diidentifikasi, seperti pentingnya membuat kerangka atau peta pikiran sebelum menulis, menggunakan bahasa akademis yang alami dan koheren, serta memastikan bahwa data yang disajikan benar-benar mendukung tujuan penelitian.
Secara keseluruhan, karakteristik penulisan ilmiah berkualitas tinggi meliputi pengorganisasian ide yang logis dan koheren, struktur yang mengikuti templat jurnal, bahasa akademis yang akurat dan tepat, serta konten yang didukung oleh data yang memadai dan dikomunikasikan dengan jelas kepada pembaca.

[syeifahma.salsa]

Syeifh Fahma Salsabila (22220097)

Interview Results: https://www.canva.com/design/DAG29v1Koxc/fCMFm_hXn8Gz5TVXK__1-Q/edit?utm_content=DAG29v1Koxc&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=sharebutton

[Author]

Posts