Online Submissions
Already have a Username/Password for Cigarskruie: Journal of Educational and Islamic Research?
Go to Login
Need a Username/Password?
Go to Registration
Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.
Author Guidelines
Criteria and Procedures for Handling Manuscripts from Submission to Publication Stage
In the academic and publishing world, manuscript handling is a very important process to ensure the quality and integrity of scientific publications. This process includes several stages, starting from submitting the manuscript, the review process, to the production and publication stages. In this essay, we will discuss in detail the criteria and steps involved in each stage of manuscript handling.
1. Manuscript Submission (Submit)
The first stage in handling a manuscript is submission or submission. At this stage, the author must prepare a complete manuscript that complies with the writing guidelines set by the journal or publisher. Criteria that must be considered in this application include:
a. Writing Format and Style
Each journal usually has a certain format, both in terms of the reference writing system, font size, and spacing. Authors should follow these guidelines to increase the chances of the manuscript being accepted. Below are formats and styles based on the Journal of Cigarskruie:
- Title of Article; Write a Sentence that Describes the Substance of the Article; Maximum 12 Words; Use Centre Alignment; Use Californian Fb 12 Bold, Lowercase
-
Abstract
The abstract should be clear, concise, and descriptive. The abstract should stand alone, meaning that no citations and figures and equation format in the abstract. Consider it the advertisement of your article. The abstract should tell the prospective reader what you did and highlight the key findings. This abstract should provide a brief background of the problem (preferably 1-2 sentences), a clear objective of the paper, the research method in short, a summary of results/findings (not discussion), and a short conclusion. Avoid using technical jargon and uncommon abbreviations. The abstract must be accurate, brief, clear, and specific. Use words that reflect the precise meaning. The abstract should be precise and honest. Please follow word limitations (should be: 150‐250 words) (← 10pt, Californian FB).
-
Introduction ← 12pt, Bold, Lowercase
In the Introduction, the Authors should state the objectives of the work/paper at the end of the introduction section. Before the objective, the Authors should provide an adequate background (maximum 1 paragraph), and a very short literature survey/review to record the existing solutions/method, to show which is the best of previous research, to show the main limitation of the previous research, to show what do you hope to achieve (to solve the limitation), and to show the scientific merit or novelties of the paper. Avoid a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results. Do not describe the literature survey/review as author by author but should be presented as a group of articles per method or topic reviewed which refers to some literature.
One of the examples of a novelty statement or the gap analysis statement at the end of the Introduction section (after the state of the art of the previous research survey) is as follows:
“........ (summary of background) ............ (put here state of the art or overview of previous research similar to this research) .............. A few researchers focused on ....... There have been limited studies concerned with........ Therefore, this research intends to ................. The objectives of this research are .........”.
or
“........ (summary of background) ............ (put here state of the art or overview of previous research similar to this research) .............. A few researchers focused on ....... There is no researcher concerned about........ Therefore, this research focuses on ................. Therefore, this research is aimed to .........”. etc.
-
Research Method ← 12pt, Bold, Lowercase
Methods should make readers be able to reproduce the experiment. Provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced. Methods already published should be indicated by a reference: only relevant modifications should be described. Do not repeat the details of established methods.
-
Result and Discussion ← 12pt, Bold, Lowercase
Results should be clear and concise. The results should summarize (scientific) findings rather than provide data in detail. Please highlight differences between your results or findings and the previous publications by other researchers. The discussion should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. A combined Results and Discussion section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature.
In discussion, it is the most important section of your article. Here you get the chance to sell your data. Make the discussion corresponding to the results, but do not reiterate the results. Often should begin with a summary of the main scientific findings (not experimental results).
The following components should be covered in the discussion: (a) How do your results relate to the original question or objectives outlined in the Introduction section? What is your finding of research? (what/how)? (b) Do you provide an interpretation scientifically for each of your results or findings presented? This scientific interpretation must be supported by valid analysis and characterization (why). (c) Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported (what else)? Or are there any differences? A comparison of your results with other researchers' results is required.
-
Conclusion ← 12pt, Bold, Lowercase
Write succinctly and the result of the research then describe the logical consequence in developing education and Islamic studies.
-
References ← 12pt, Bold, Lowercase
Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. Cite only items that you have read. Do not inflate the manuscript with too many references. Avoid excessive self‐citations. Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region. Check each reference against the source (author's name, volume, issue, year, Digital Object Identification (DOI) Number). DOI Number information must be provided (if available). It is suggested to use Reference Manager Applications like Zotero/Mendeley/EndNote. Use other published articles in the same journal as models. The minimum number of references should be 20 and 10 last year.
All publications cited in the text should be included as a list of references. References are sequentially numbered as they appear in the text. Reference numbers are indicated in square brackets. Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa). Any references cited in the abstract must be given in full. Unpublished results and personal communications are not recommended in the reference list but may be mentioned in the text. If these references are included in the reference list, they should follow the standard reference style of the journal and should include a substitution of the publication date with either “Unpublished results” or “Personal communication”. The citation of a reference as 'in press' implies that the item has been accepted for publication.
For the web references (if any), as a minimum, the full URL should be given, and the date when the reference was last accessed. Any further information, if known (DOI, author names, dates, a reference to a source publication, etc.), should also be given. Web references can be listed separately (e.g., after the reference list) under a different heading if desired, or can be included in the reference list. Please ensure that the words 'this issue' are added to any references in the list (and any citations in the text) to other articles in the same Special Issue.
References listed in the Cigarskruie journal must follow The Modified American Psychological Association (APA) Version 6th. or 7th. Authors should provide the DOI number of each reference, especially from journal articles. An example can be seen below:
Author's Last Name(s), First Name(s) in capital shortened. (year). Book Title. Edition. Place: Publisher. ← Book
(Authors Last Name(s), First Name(s) in capital shortened) Engelmore, R., Morgan, A. (1986). Blackboard Systems. Edition. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ← Book
Author's Last Name(s), First Name(s) in capital shortened. (year). Article Title. Journal Title. Volume (Issue Number optional), page number start-page number end, DOI information. ← Journal
Robinson, A.L. (1980). New Ways to Make Microcircuits Smaller. Science, 208, 1019-1026. DOI: 10.1126/science.208.4447.1019. ← Journal
Bhavsar, D.S., Saraf, K.B. (2002). Morphology of PbI2 Crystals Grown by Gel Method. Crystal Research and Technology, 37, 51–55. DOI: 10.1002/1521-4079(200202)37:1%3C51::AID-CRAT51%3E3.0.CO;2-N ←Journal
Clancey, W.J. (1983). Communication, Simulation, and Intelligent Agents: Implications of Personal Intelligent Machines for Medical Education. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 556-560. Menlo Park, Calif.: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Inc. ←Conferences
Amin, N.A.S., Istadi, I. (2012). Different Tools on Multiobjective Optimization of a Hybrid Artificial Neural Network – Genetic Algorithm for Plasma Chemical Reactor Modelling. In Olympia Roeva (Editor) Real-World Applications of Genetic Algorithms. Croatia: InTech Publisher. ← Book Chapter
Rice, J. (1986). Polygon: A System for Parallel Problem Solving, Technical Report, KSL-86-19, Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford Univ. ←Report
Clancey, W.J. (1979). Transfer of Rule-Based Expertise through a Tutorial Dialogue. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University. ←Thesis
Ivey, K.C. (2 September 1996). Citing Internet sources URL http://www.eei- alex.com/eye/utw/96aug.html. ←Website (but should be avoided)
b. Content Quality
In the relentless pursuit of knowledge, the scientific community serves as an engine of discovery, innovation, and advancement. At the heart of this enterprise lies the process of scholarly publication, wherein researchers articulate their findings, methodologies, and analyses through the dissemination of manuscripts. The notion that such manuscripts must have a significant contribution to the field of science underpins the very purpose of scientific inquiry. Within this context, the term "significant contribution" encompasses a spectrum of possibilities including novel findings, in-depth analyses, and comprehensive reviews that collectively enhance understanding and propel the field forward. This essay will elucidate the essentiality of significant contributions in scientific manuscripts, explore the implications of such contributions on the advancement of knowledge, and consider the broader context in which these manuscripts operate.
To begin, it is crucial to articulate what constitutes a significant contribution in the scientific domain. A prominent aspect of this definition is the introduction of new findings. Breakthroughs often stem from innovative research that challenges existing paradigms or illuminates previously uncharted territory. For instance, the discovery of CRISPR-Cas9 as a powerful tool for genetic editing has revolutionized molecular biology and genetic engineering. Such findings not only advance scientific understanding but also engender implications for various practical applications, ranging from medicine to agriculture. The recognition of new phenomena or mechanisms serves as a pivotal contributor to the body of scientific knowledge, offering both a reference point for future research and a means to refine theoretical frameworks.
In addition to novel discoveries, in-depth analyses represent another form of significant contribution. The rigorous examination of existing data or theories can yield insights that may transcend the findings of original research. For example, meta-analyses and systematic reviews synthesize multiple studies to discern overarching trends, identify methodological weaknesses, and propose new hypotheses. Such contributions deepen the scientific discourse by contextualizing findings within a broader framework, facilitating a more comprehensive understanding of a given phenomenon. Through meticulous scrutiny and articulation of previously gathered knowledge, scholars serve to refine the scientific narrative and lay the groundwork for future inquiries.
Moreover, comprehensive reviews stand as a cornerstone of significant contributions to the scientific literature. These manuscripts systematically collate and evaluate the existing body of work surrounding a particular topic or question, thus providing an invaluable resource for researchers who may be navigating complex or evolving fields. A well-crafted review not only elucidates the current state of knowledge but also highlights gaps that necessitate further exploration. By doing so, it fosters a more cohesive understanding of a subject, encourages interdisciplinary dialogue, and galvanizes research efforts that build upon established foundations. Notable examples include the extensive reviews on climate change, which aggregate diverse research findings to elucidate the multifaceted impacts on global systems and inform policy and public understanding.
The significance of these contributions is underscored by their implications for the scientific process itself. The peer-review system, which serves as a quality control mechanism for scholarly publications, is predicated on the notion that only manuscripts offering substantial contributions should be disseminated. This not only ensures that the body of scientific literature is enriched with meaningful insights but also imposes a standard of rigor that underpins legitimacy and credibility in science. As researchers diligently strive to produce work of consequence, they are also engaging in a collective effort to propel knowledge forward—not merely for the sake of their professional accreditation but for the enrichment of society at large.
Furthermore, the impact of significant contributions transcends the academic world and integrates into societal progress. The translation of scientific findings into practical applications, policy decisions, and educational frameworks hinges upon the robustness and relevance of the underlying research. When scientists produce significant contributions, they inform public discourse, guide policy formulation, and inspire innovations that have tangible benefits for humanity. For instance, research on infectious diseases can lead to vaccine development that saves countless lives, while studies on renewable energy can pave the way for sustainable practices that mitigate climate change. Thereby, the imperative of significant contribution becomes evident; it is not an abstract ideal but a transformative force with ramifications that resonate throughout society.
Nevertheless, the landscape of scientific publishing is not without its challenges. It is imperative that the definition of a significant contribution evolves alongside advancements in science, as research fields become increasingly interdisciplinary and complex. The pressure to produce 'novelty' can sometimes lead to a focus on superficial findings or incremental changes that may not warrant publication. Moreover, the proliferation of predatory journals—those lacking rigorous peer-review processes—further complicates the issue, as they may dilute the standards of what is considered a significant contribution. This necessitates ongoing dialogue within the scientific community about the criteria and expectations for publication, ensuring that the integrity and value of scholarly work remain upheld.
The expectation that manuscripts must offer a significant contribution to the field of science is a fundamental principle that drives the advancement of knowledge. Whether through new findings that revolutionize understanding, in-depth analyses that deepen insights, or comprehensive reviews that provide context and direction, significant contributions play an indispensable role in the scientific enterprise. The implications of such contributions extend far beyond academia; they shape public policy, inspire technological innovation, and drive societal progress. As the landscape of science continues to evolve, it is paramount that the pursuit of meaningful contributions remains at the forefront of scholarly endeavors, ensuring that the quest for knowledge remains both rigorous and impactful.
c. Ethics Compliance
In the realm of academic publishing, the integrity of research and scholarship stands as a paramount concern. Authors bear a profound responsibility to ensure that their works are original, free from duplicative content and, importantly, free from plagiarism. Plagiarism is not merely a breach of ethical standards; it undermines the very essence of creativity and intellectual exchange that scholarship seeks to promote. In recognition of this critical issue, academic journals increasingly employ sophisticated software tools designed to detect instances of plagiarism, reinforcing the necessity for authors to take rigorous measures to uphold originality in their submissions.
Plagiarism, defined as the unattributed use of another's words, ideas, or intellectual property, manifests in various forms, ranging from direct copying to more insidious practices like paraphrasing without proper citation or self-plagiarism. The act of plagiarizing diminishes the value and integrity of scholarly work, casting doubt on the reliability of the information presented. In an academic landscape that relies on trust, the implications of plagiarism extend beyond the individual author; they encompass the reputation of the journals, institutions, and the broader community of scholars. The prevalence of plagiarism has prompted a heightened vigilance among editors and reviewers, culminating in the adoption of plagiarism detection software by many reputable journals.
These software tools—such as Turnitin, iThenticate, and Copyscape—function by comparing submitted manuscripts against extensive databases of published work, online content, and prior submissions. They identify similarities and provide authors and editors with detailed reports that flag potential instances of plagiarism. This technological approach serves as both a deterrent and a diagnostic resource, prompting authors to reflect critically on their own work’s originality. The presence of such tools signifies a commitment by scholarly institutions to uphold the standards of integrity and quality that the academic community demands.
For authors, the imperative to ensure originality is not merely a question of avoiding censure or rejection. It is integral to the advancement of knowledge. Original contributions are the backbone of scholarship; they fuel the progress of research by introducing new ideas, methodologies, and insights. When authors engage in dishonest practices by submitting plagiarized work, they not only compromise their academic integrity but also stall the forward momentum of discourse in their fields. Each original piece holds the potential to inspire subsequent scholars, sparking new conversations and paving the way for innovative research trajectories. Thus, the valorization of originality is not only a duty but also a celebration of the intellectual endeavors that define scholarly pursuits.
Moreover, the ethical ramifications associated with plagiarism extend into the fabric of academic culture. Upholding originality fosters an environment where intellectual property rights are respected, encouraging a healthy environment for innovation and collaboration. Scholars who are diligent in their research practices contribute to a culture that values rigorous inquiry, critical analysis, and respectful engagement with the ideas of others. This culture is essential for nurturing the next generation of scholars who will carry the mantle of scholarly integrity forward.
Importantly, it is incumbent upon academic institutions to cultivate an awareness of plagiarism and originality from the outset of educational trajectories. Incorporating instruction on proper citation practices, the ethics of research, and the significance of original thought into curriculum design will equip emerging scholars with the tools necessary to navigate the complex terrain of academic writing. Workshops, seminars, and resources addressing these topics can serve to demystify plagiarism and reinforce the belief that originality is attainable and admirable.
Despite the advances in technology and education, the battle against plagiarism remains ongoing. There are instances where authors, under the pressure of deadlines or the desire for acceptability within their fields, may cut corners or neglect the fundamental tenet of originality. This represents a significant challenge for the scholarly community: how to instill a pervasive culture of integrity that transcends the allure of expediency. It necessitates not only the implementation of detection tools but also a collective commitment to fostering ethical scholarship at every level of academic engagement.
In conclusion, the requirement for authors to ensure the originality of their work is an unyielding principle that reflects the essence of scholarly integrity. Plagiarism, in all its forms, threatens the trust that underpins academic discourse and devalues the contributions of diligent researchers. The integration of software tools to detect plagiarism represents a proactive step in safeguarding the sanctity of knowledge. However, this technological approach must be complemented by an educational framework that champions originality and ethical scholarship. As the academic community advances into the future, scholars must remain steadfast in their commitment to originality—recognizing that the pursuit of knowledge is enriched through respect, creativity, and intellectual honesty.
After authors submit a manuscript, authors are asked to complete a submission form that includes information such as the author's name, affiliation, and contact information. It is important to provide accurate and up-to-date information, as this will influence subsequent communications during the review process.
2. Review Process
After the manuscript is submitted, the next stage is the review process. This process is one of the most important steps in manuscript handling because it ensures that only quality work is published. In general, the review process involves several criteria:
a. Manuscript Acceptance
Once the manuscript is received, the journal editor will conduct an initial review to ensure that the manuscript fits the scope and focus of the journal. If the manuscript is not suitable, it can be rejected at this stage.
b. Appointment of Reviewers
If the manuscript passes initial review, the editor will appoint one or more reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are usually experts in the field and have no conflict of interest with the author.
c. Review by Reviewer
Reviewers will read and provide feedback on the manuscript. They assess several aspects such as methodology, clarity of presentation, relevance and accuracy of data. This feedback usually includes recommendations for revision, acceptance, or rejection of the manuscript.
d. Editor's Decision
After receiving feedback from reviewers, the journal editor will make a final decision on the manuscript. Decisions can vary from “accepted without revision,” “accepted with revision,” “rejected,” or “under review.”
This review process is very important because it can improve the quality of the manuscript. Revisions proposed by reviewers often make the manuscript stronger and more relevant to the proposed theme.
3. Manuscript Revision
If the manuscript requires revision, the author will be asked to improve the manuscript based on the feedback provided. This process can take place several times, depending on the quality of the revisions carried out. Criteria that writers must pay attention to when revising include:
a. Responding to Feedback
The author must respond to every comment from the reviewer comprehensively. This includes explaining what was fixed and justification for changes that were not made.
b. Manuscript Quality
It is important to ensure that the final manuscript is free of grammatical or typographical errors and that the arguments put forward are strong.
Once the author submits a revised version, the review process may be repeated, depending on the editor's decision and the level of revision required.
4. Production Stage
Once the manuscript is received, it will enter the production stage. At this stage, several criteria and processes carried out include:
a. Professional Editing
Journals will send manuscripts to professional editors to improve the quality of the writing, both in terms of language, structure, and storyline.
b. Preparation of Galley Proof
After editing, the manuscript will be converted into galley proof format, which is the final version that is almost ready for publication. The author will usually be asked to check the galley proof and give approval before the manuscript is published.
c. Graphical and Table Data Preparation
If the manuscript includes graphs, tables, or illustrations, this stage will ensure that all visual elements are prepared and displayed correctly.
d. Publication
Once all aspects of production are complete, the manuscript will be published. The publication process includes:
a. Online and Print Publishing
Depending on journal policy, manuscripts may be published in online, print, or both formats.
b. Distribution and Promotion
After publication, the journal will promote the article through various channels, including social media and newsletters.
a. Metadata and Indexation
Published articles will be accompanied by appropriate metadata to facilitate search and indexation in academic databases.
The process of handling a manuscript from submission to publication is a complex and multi-step pathway that aims to ensure that the published work meets high-quality standards. Each stage, from submission, review, revision, and production, to publication, has strict criteria and procedures that must be adhered to by authors and editors. By following this process, we can ensure that science advances ethically and responsibly. Proper handling of manuscripts is a necessary foundation for producing quality and peaceful scientific publications for the development of scientific disciplines.