Aguinis, H., Edwards, J. R., & Bradley, K. J. (2017). Improving Our Understanding of Moderation and Mediation in Strategic Management Research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 665–685. http://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115627498

Berisi panduan thesis yang disajikan dalam bentuk tanya-jawab.

Nicole Newendorp. 2011. A Guide to Writing a Senior Thesis in Social Studies. Harvard College

Karateristik jurnal abal-abal atau predatory journal yang dikemukakan ini tidak dimaksudkan untuk mengatakan bahwa bila setiap jurnal yang memenuhi beberapa ciri maka termasuk abal-abal. Hanya saja, bila suatu jurnal mengandung banyak ciri tersebut, maka ia patut dicurigai.

1. The publisher is not a member of any recognized professional organisation committed to best publishing practices (like COPE or EASE)
2. The journal is not indexed in well-established electronic databases (like Medline or Web of Science)
3. The publisher claims to be a ‘‘leading publisher’’ even though it just got started
4. The journal and the publisher are unfamiliar to you and all your colleagues
5. The papers of the journal are of poor research quality, and may not be academic at all (for instance allowing for obvious pseudo-science) There are fundamental errors in the titles and abstracts, or frequent and repeated typographical or factual errors throughout the published papers
6. The journal website is not professional
7. The journal website does not present an editorial board or gives insufficient detail on names and affiliations
8. The journal website does not reveal the journal’s editorial office location or uses an incorrect address
9. The publishing schedule is not clearly stated
10. The journal title claims a national affiliation that does not match its location (such as’’American Journal of …’’ while being located on another continent) or includes’’international’’ in its title while having a single-country editorial board
11. The journal mimics another journal title or the website of said journal
12. The journal provides an impact factor in spite of the fact that the journal is new (which means that the impact cannot yet be calculated)
13. The journal claims an unrealistically high impact based on spurious alternative impact factors (such as 7 for a bioethics journal, which is far beyond the top notation)
14. The journal website posts non-related or non-academic advertisements
15. The publisher of the journal has released an overwhelmingly large suite of new journals at one occasion or during a very short period of time
16. The editor in chief of the journal is editor in chief also for other journals with widely different focus
17. The journal includes articles (very far) outside its stated scope
18. The journal sends you an unsolicited invitation to submit an article for publication, while making it blatantly clear that the editor has absolutely no idea about your field of expertise
19. Emails from the journal editor are written in poor language, include exaggerated flattering (everyone is a leading profile in the field), and make contradictory claims (such as ‘‘You have to respond within 48 h’’ while later on saying ‘‘You may submit your manuscript whenever you find convenient’’)
20. The journal charges a submission or handling fee, instead of a publication fee (which means that you have to pay even if the paper is not accepted for publication)
21. The types of submission/publication fees and what they amount to are not clearly stated on the journal’s website
22. The journal gives unrealistic promises regarding the speed of the peer review process (hinting that the journal’s peer review process is minimal or non-existent)—or boasts an equally unrealistic track-record
23. The journal does not describe copyright agreements clearly or demands the copyright of the paper while claiming to be an open access journal
24. The journal displays no strategies for how to handle misconduct, conflicts-of-interests, or secure the archiving of articles when no longer in operation

Eriksson, S., & Helgesson, G. (2017). The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(2), 163–170. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9740-3

3

Indeks Kecakapan Bahasa Inggris EF – EF EPI

https://www.ef.co.id/epi/

https://www.editage.com/insights/5-differences-between-a-research-paper-and-a-review-paper

Bila diasumsikan semua mahasiswa punya telepon pintar, maka pencatatan daftar hadir dapat dilakukan seperti ini:

Plus

• Praktis buat dosen dan mahasiswa
• Jika gambar ditayangkan singkat di awal waktu, maka mahasiswa yang terlambat tidak akan tercatat kehadirannya

Minus

• Mahasiswa bisa titip hp
• Kelupaan bawa hp, dianggap tidak masuk
• Gambar tersebut bisa disalin ulang, lalu kirim ke kawannya yang tidak masuk kelas, kemudian discan. Maka kawannya yang di luar kelas itu akan dianggap hadir.
• Bisa juga dikirim ke grup, sehingga ramai tak masuk kelas, tapi tercatat datang.

Research Paradigms in Social Sciences:

Ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology

Positivism, Postpositivism, Interpretivism

Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding paradigms, cases, methods and methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 69–80. http://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2008)31

Standalone Literature Review

a scholarly paper that in its entirety summarizes and synthesizes knowledge from a prior body of research.

• 8 langkah melakukan SLR
• Petunjuk sistematik mengembangkan literature review
• Petunjuk mengenai sintesis, terminologi, protokol, tips praktis dan lain-lain

Chitu Okoli. 2015. A Guide to Conducting a Standalone Systematic Literature Review

Systematic reviews aim to address these problems by identifying, critically evaluating and integrating the findings of all relevant, high-quality individual studies addressing one or more research questions.

A good systematic review might achieve most or all of the following (Baumeister & Leary, 1997; Bem, 1995; Cooper, 2003):

1. Establish to what extent existing research has progressed towards clarifying a particular problem;
2. Identify relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the literature, and explore reasons for these (e.g. by proposing a new conceptualisation or theory which accounts for the inconsistency);
3. Formulate general statements or an overarching conceptualization (make a point, rather than summarizing all the points everyone else has made; Sternberg, 1991);
4. Comment on, evaluate, extend, or develop theory;
5. In doing these things, provide implications for practice and policy;
6. Describe directions for future research.

Dr Andy Siddaway. What is a systematic literature review and how do I do one?

Para sarjana Barat umumnya gagal megenali kontribusi umat Islam dalam ilmu pengetahuan. Mereka menyebutkan adanya “jurang besar (the great gap)” pengetahuan selama lebih dari 500 tahun dalam sejarah pemikiran ekonomi, mulai sejak jaman Yunani hingga renaisans Barat. Namun ahirnya pandangan ini terbantahkan. Ibnu Khaldun, seorang ulama yang hidup pada abad 14 merupakan yang telah mengemukakan gagasan-gagasannya jauh sebelum orang-orang Barat menyatakan ulang gagasan tersebut. Kontribusi terbesar Ibnu Khaldun dalam pemikiran ekonomi adalah penggunaan cabang ilmu pegetahuan ini bersamaan dengan cabang ilmu lain seperti sosiologi, politik, norma dan kepercayaan untuk membentuk model yang komprehensif dan saling berkait yang menjelaskan naik turunnya peradaban. Tulisan ini menelusuri sumbangan Ibnu Khaldun dalam pemikiran ekonomi modern melalui studi kepustakaan untuk mengidentifikasi pemikiran-pemikirannya yang masih relevan.

Klik

Jahja, A. S. (2009). Mengenali Kontribusi Ibnu Khaldun terhadap Pemikiran Ekonomi. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Keuangan Syariah Amwaluna, 1(1), 61–75.