1. ISI-Journal: Institute for Scientific Information Journal 
2. Sekarang dikendalikan oleh Clarivate Analytics 
3. Dahulunya, Clarivate Analytics adalah di bawah Thomson Reuters 
4. Thomson Reuters adalah perusahaan yang mengelola THE World University Rankings

Syahrir Bin Zaini

Koma Oxford (the Oxford comma) atau koma serial, merupakan koma yang digunakan sebelum kata sambung (dan, atau) pada akhir penyebutan tiga istilah atau lebih. Ketiadaan koma dapat menyebabkan tafsiran berbeda.

Di Amerika Serikat ketiadaan sebuah koma dapat menyebabkan gugatan hukum. Para sopir truk di sebuah perusahaan susu di negara bagian Maine melayangkan gugatan dan pengadilan federal menyatakan gugatan tersebut layak dilanjutkan. Para sopir truk menggugat perusahaan tempat mereka bekerja sebesar 10 juta dolar AS atau Rp 133 miliar karena upah lembur yang tidak dibayarkan selama empat tahun. Dasar gugatan itu adalah undang-undang ketenagakerjaan Maine yang menyatakan upah lembur tidak dibayarkan bagi pekerja “pengalengan, pemrosesan, pengawetan, pembekuan, pengeringan, pemasaran, penyimpanan, pengemasan untuk pengapalan atau distribusi” makanan.

Para sopir mengatakan pekerjaan mereka tidak termasuk dalam pengecualian upah lembur di atas sehingga layak atas bayaran tambahan. Kata-kata yang menjadi dasar para sopir dalam undang-undang adalah “pengemasan untuk pengapalan atau distribusi” yang dianggap menjadi satu dalam aktivitas pengemasan, sedangkan mereka hanya mendistribusikan saja. Pihak perusahaan dalam pembelaannya mengatakan, kalimat dalam UU di atas adalah dua aktivitas berbeda, yaitu pengapalan atau distribusi, sehingga sopir masuk dalam pengecualian itu.
Permasalahannya di sini adalah tidak adanya koma serial atau yang dikenal dengan nama Oxford Comma dalam kalimat tersebut.

Gambar berikut menjelaskan mengenai perbedaan arti sehubungan dengan koma Oxford.

Sumber:

Oxford Comma
Kumparan, 19 Maret 2017. Perkara Tanda Koma Berujung Gugatan Rp 133 Miliar di AS

Birukou

Berdasarkan informasi di bawah ini, kebanyakan jurnal terindeks Scopus memerlukan waktu minimum tiga bulan untuk menerbitkan artikel. Ada yang mengatakan paling cepat 3 atau 4 minggu.

https://www.editage.com/…/a-list-of-journals-and…
A list of journals and publishers that offer rapid publication | Editage …
http://www.jestr.org/
JESTR: Home
https://www.researchgate.net/…/Is_there_any_rapid…
Is there any rapid publication journals that are indexed by ISI or …
https://www.springer.com/…/springer-fast-track…/4418
Springer Fast Track Journal Publishing: 20 Days to Publication!
http://gssrr.org/
International Journals of Research Papers (IJRP)
https://www.iaeme.com/Reason-for-Choosing-IAEME-Journals.asp
IAEME Publication, IJMET, IJCIET Scopus Indexed Journal, IJCET …
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/…/new-fast-track…
New: Fast Track Publication Service – News – Elsevier
https://www.ripublication.com/call_for_papers/ijaer.pdf
SCOPUS Indexed Journal – Research India Publications
https://www.quora.com/How-should-I-get-my-paper-published…
How should I get my paper published on a Scopus-indexed journal …
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/static/publish
PLOS ONE: accelerating the publication of peer-reviewed science

FB DSG

lama waktu masa tunggu terbit dutation time fast rapid publication journal weeks months average review process period makalah 

Keywords:

Rigor, trustworthiness, internal, external, validity, reliability, credibility, transferability, coherence, replicability, dependability, authenticity, plausibility, confirmability, triangulation, consistency, neutrality, objectivity, applicability, fittingness, auditability, consistency, replicability.

)|(

To establish the “trustworthiness” of findings from studies using qualitative methods, Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose that we assess the research in terms of its:

• Credibility. The “truth” of the findings, as viewed through the eyes of those being observed or interviewed and within the context in which the research is carried out.
• Transferability. The extent to which findings can be transferred to other settings. In order for findings to be transferable, the contexts must be similar. Therefore, it is the role of the researcher to identify key aspects of the context from which the findings emerge and the extent to which they may be applicable to other contexts.
• Dependability. The extent to which the research would produce similar or consistent findings if carried out as described, including taking into account any factors that may have affected the research results.
• Confirmability. Researchers need to provide evidence that corroborates the findings. Such evidence should come directly from subjects and research context, rather than the researcher’s biases, motivations, or perspectives.

(Devers, 1999)

)|(

(Creswell & Miller, 2000)

)|(

Reliability and Validity in Quantitative Research

Reliability means consistency or the degree to which a research instrument measures a given variable consistently every time it is used under the same condition with the same subjects. It is important to note that reliability applies to data not to measurement instruments. From different perspectives or approaches, researchers can evaluate the extent to which their instruments provide reliable data.

Validity refers to the accuracy of research data. A researcher’s data can be said to be valid if the results of the study measurement process are accurate. That is, a measurement instrument is valid to the degree that it measures what it is supposed to measure.

To judge the quality or (a) credibility and (b) dependability of a qualitative study, the following questions compiled from various studies can be asked (Miles & Huberman, 1994, pp. 278–279):

Credibility (instead of validity) questions:

• How context-rich and detailed are the basic descriptions?
• Does the account ‘ring true’, make sense, seem convincing or plausible, enable a ‘vicarious presence’ for the reader?
• Is the account rendered comprehensive, respecting the configuration and temporal arrangement of elements in the local context?
• Did triangulation among complementary methods and data sources generally lead to converging conclusions? If not, is there a coherent explanation for this?
• Are the presented data linked to the categories of prior or emergent theory if used?
• Are the findings internally coherent and concepts systematically related?
• Were guiding principles used for confirmation of propositions made explicit?
• Are areas of uncertainty identified?
• Was negative case or evidence sought for? Found? What happened then?
• Have rival explanations been actively considered? What happened to them?
• Were the conclusions considered to be accurate by the participants involved in the study?
• If not, is there a coherent explanation for this?

Dependability (instead of reliability) questions:

• Are research questions clearly defined and the features of the study design congruent with them?
• Are basic paradigms and analytic constructs clearly specified?
• Are the researcher’s role and status within the site explicitly described?
• If multiple field-researchers are involved, do they have comparable data collection protocols?
• Do multiple observers’ accounts converge, in instances, settings, or times when they might be expected to?
• Were data connected across the full range of appropriate settings, times, respondents suggested by the research questions?
• Were coding checks made and did they show adequate agreements?
• Were data quality checks for bias, deceit, informant knowledgeability etc. made?
• Do findings show meaningful parallelism across data sources (informants, contexts, and times)?
• Were any forms of peer or colleague review employed?

To assess the rigour of qualitative research, Lincoln and Guba (1985) resort to the concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability to express the quantitative concepts of internal validity, external validity (generalisability), reliability, and objectivity respectively. Credibility means that the participants involved in the study find the results of the study true or credible.

Transferability is achieved if the findings of a qualitative study are transferable to other similar settings. Thick description of the setting, context, people, actions, and events studied is needed to ensure transferability or external validity in quantitative terms. The study has dependability (reliability) if the process of selecting, justifying and applying research strategies, procedures and methods is clearly explained and its effectiveness evaluated by the researcher and confirmed by an auditor, which is called ‘audit trail’. The study enjoys confirmability when its findings are based on the analysis of the collected data and examined via an auditing process, i.e. the auditor confirms that the study findings are grounded in the data and inferences based on the data are logical and have clarity, high utility or explanatory power.

In short, terms such as credibility, trustworthiness, authenticity, neutrality or confirmability, dependability, applicability or transferability and the like are those that qualitative researchers use most in their discussion of the concepts of reliability and validity

(Yilmaz, 2013)

)|(

While some argue for the same criteria as quantitative research (Morse et al., 2002), others argue for different criteria (Sandelowski, 1986; Koch and Harrington, 1998), while still others reject any pre-determined criteria (Hope and Waterman, 2003; Johnson and Waterfield, 2004; Rolfe, 2006).

While it has been argued that each approach requires different criteria (Koch and Harrington, 1998), the commonly accepted criteria that are applied across approaches are summarized Table 4. Transferability is contingent on credibility, which in turn is contingent on dependability and confirmability. Trustworthiness refers to the confidence or trust one can have of a study and its findings (Robson, 2011) and is determined by those assessing a study (c.f. quantitative research that refers to validity which is judged by researcher).

(Petty, Thomson, & Stew, 2012)

References

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

Devers, K. J. (1999). How Will We Know “Good” Qualitative Research When We See It? Beginning the Dialogue in Health Services Research. HSR: Health Services Research, 34(5), 1153–1188. http://doi.org/http://www.hsr.org/

Petty, N. J., Thomson, O. P., & Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a paradigm shift? Part 2: Introducing qualitative research methodologies and methods. Manual Therapy, 17(5), 378–384. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.math.2012.03.004

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Traditions : epistemological , theoretical. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311–325. http://doi.org/doi:10.1111/ejed.12014

Berbagai jawaban.

Gentles, Stephen J., Cathy Charles, Jenny Ploeg, and K. Ann McKibbon. “Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature.” The Qualitative Report 20, no. 11 (2015): 1772.

• Jika saturated level (tingkat kejenuhan) telah dicapai, boleh berhenti. Disebut jenuh yaitu bila informan berikutnya telah memberikan informasi yang sama dengan informan sebelumnya, tidak ada informasi baru yang diperoleh.

• “Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) propose that saturation often occurs around 12 participants in homogeneous groups. This is consistent with my own experience during a recent CEO study where saturation occurred around 11 participants (Latham, 2013). To ensure that you have saturation you have to go beyond the point of saturation to make sure no new major concepts emerge in the next few interviews or observations. Consequently, 15 as a minimum for most qualitative interview studies works very well when the participants are homogeneous. Homogeneous means a particular “position” or level (e.g., top level executives) in the organization, a particular type of employee (e.g., customer service representatives), so on and so forth. For a particular group, saturation often occurs between 12 and 15. However, if you are interviewing different types of participants then you may need 12 to 15 of each type in order to reach saturation.”

John Latam. Qualitative Sample Size – How Many Participants is Enough?

http://johnlatham.me/many-participants-enough/

• Kurang lebih 10 orangpun sudah mencapai kejenuhan data (saturated level). Ada yang dengan 5 informan, justifikasinya diterima oleh para penguji disertasi. Yang penting wawancara dengan informan dilakukan sekurang-kurangnya dua kali. Tidak cukup dengan sekali saja, karena mungkin saja ada pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang tertinggal atau ada informasi yang diperlukan, belum diperoleh. Biasanya pertemuan pertama kali ada hal yang tertinggal, atau orang yang diwawancarai belum bersedia berbagi, masih malu-malu, tidak ada waktu, atau hambatan lain. Maka pertemuan kedua perlu diatur, dan setelah wawancara agar membuat transkripnya.

• -the range of 6-8 informants was satisfies the requirements (Smith, 2003).
  -data becomes saturated after the first twelve informants, and even the basic themes were proposed after as early 6 informants (Guest et al, 2008)
  -Lincoln & Guba (1985) recommend sampling until a point of saturation or redundancy is reached.

• It seems the common agreement is stopped once data is saturated! But as a quali reseacher, it is critical to “un blackbox” the be-all-end-all saturation. Personally, between the common thematic analysis and the grounded theory approach ( GT as method, not theory), GT approach which involves open coding then axial coding, and constant comparison is more robust and transparent in illustrating the elusive “saturation point”. Need to be cautious that the quality of saturation is contingency of one’s skills/experience/etc, thus the ever popular and confusing question of sample size

• Baker & Edwards (2012) menyampaikan pandangan dari 19 pakar mengenai hal ini.

Referensi lain:

https://researchdesignreview.com/…/qualitative…/
Qualitative Research “Participants” Are Not “Respondents” (& Other …
http://johnlatham.me/many-participants-enough/
Qualitative Sample Size – How Many Participants is Enough? – John …
https://quizlet.com/…/research-participants…/
Research: Participants, respondents, subjects – what is the … – Quizlet
http://methods.sagepub.com/…/sage-encyc…/n403.xml
Respondent – SAGE Research Methods
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805454/
Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research
https://www.researchgate.net/…/How_many_interviews_are…
How many interviews are needed in a qualitative research? Is …
https://www.researchgate.net/…/What_is_the_appropriate…
What is the appropriate number of respondents to participate…
http://ahaonlineresearch.com/successful-qualitative…/
How to Build a Better Qualitative Research Respondent Guide
https://www.ons.gov.uk/…/designing-sampling-strategies…
Designing sampling strategies for qualitative social research: with …
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf
How many qualitative interviews is enough? – NCRM EPrints …

How many interviews are needed in a qualitative research?

Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. “How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability.” Field methods 18, no. 1 (2006): 59-82.

Robinson, Oliver C. “Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 11, no. 1 (2014): 25-41.

FB DSG

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/education/2017/10/22/varsities-aim-to-boost-rankings-further/ 

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2018/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/locations/MY/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Pada skala 1-8, sejauh mana kontribusi riset kita?
1) Straight replication
2) Replication and extension
3) Extension of a new theory/method in a new area
4) Integrative review (e.g., meta-analysis)
5) Develop a new theory to explain an old phenomenon – compete one theory against another – classic theory testing
6) Identification of a new phenomenon
7) Develop a grand synthesis – integration
8) Develop a new theory that predicts a new phenomenon (e.g., the theory of relativity)

Ladik, D. M., & Stewart, D. W. (2008). The contribution continuum. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 157–165. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0087-z

Susanto Imam Rahayu. Implikasi Pendidikan Doktor. Kompas, Rabu, 25 Oktober 2017.

• Tujuan Program Doktor (Pasal 20 UU No 12/2012)
  Mampu menemukan, menciptakan dan/atau memberikan kontribusi kepada pengembangan, serta pengamalan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi melalui penalaran dan penelitian ilmiah.
• Maknanya, seorang doktor harus berperan sebagai ilmuwan dan pengembang ilmu pengetahuan. Tempat yang tepat baginya adalah menjadi pengajar dan peneliti di lembaga pendidikan tinggi dan lembaga penelitian dan pengembangan.
• “The Doctor of Philosophy program is designed to prepare a student to become a scholar, that is, to discover, to integrate, and to apply knowledge, as well as communicate and disseminate” – Council of Graduate Schools (2005) Amerika Serikat.
• Kemampuan yang perlu dikembangkan dan dikuasai:
  1. Kedalaman dan keluasan pegetahuan.
  2. Kemampuan merancang dan melakukan penelitian.
  3. Kemampuan menulis dan berkomunikasi.
• Langkah-langkah.
  1. Mahasiswa diuji kualifikasinya.
  2. Mahasiswa menyusun proposal penelitian yang orisinal dan kontributif.
  3. Usulan penelitian dipertahankan di hadapan para penguji.
  4. Penulisan disertasi.
• Disertasi seyogyanya dipublikasikan untuk memberitahu dan mendapatkan pengakuan dari masyarakat akademik bahwa permasalahan yang dihadapi telah dikerjakan dan diselesaikan sehingga dapat digunakan, dirujuk atau dibahas kembali bila dirasa perlu.
• Pendidikan doktor bukanlan sekadar menghasilkan gelar, tapi tenaga bagi kelangsungan proses penemuan baru dan pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan. Hal ini dapat diwujudkan melalui kejujuran akademik dan staf pengajar yang memiliki program penelitian.

PERATURAN MENTERI RISET, TEKNOLOGI, DAN PENDIDIKAN TINGGI REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR 59 TAHUN 2017 TENTANG PENYETARAAN IJAZAH DAN KONVERSI NILAI INDEKS PRESTASI KUMULATIF LULUSAN PERGURUAN TINGGI LUAR NEGERI

Isinya antara lain:

1. Persyaratan Penyetaraan Ijazah:
   • Perguruan Tinggi luar negeri dan/atau program studi harus terakreditasi atau diakui oleh pemerintah atau lembaga yang berwenang;
   • menunjukkan Ijazah asli yang akan disetarakan;
   • menyerahkan fotokopi Ijazah;
   • menunjukkan transkrip nilai asli yang diperoleh dari Perguruan Tinggi luar negeri; dan
   • menyerahkan fotokopi transkrip nilai akademik.
2. Pencantuman gelar lulusan hasil Penyetaraan Ijazah tetap menggunakan gelar pada Ijazah yang diterbitkan oleh Perguruan Tinggi luar negeri.
3. Nilai IPK atau pengukuran lainnya lulusan Perguruan Tinggi luar negeri dapat dikonversi sesuai dengan Standar Nasional Pendidikan Tinggi. (Berarti mengacu ke Permenristekdikti no. 44 Tahun 2015, pengganti Permen no.49 tahun 2014).
4. Permenristekdikti Nomor 21 Tahun 2015 tentang Kesetaraan Ijazah Perguruan Tinggi Luar Negeri dengan Ijazah Perguruan Tinggi Indonesia dicabut dan dinyatakan tidak berlaku.

Bagaimana mencari jurnal Scopus yang tepat, sesuai dengan artikel yang hendak kita terbitkan?
Kunjungi Elsevier Journal Finder  http://journalfinder.elsevier.com/

Selain itu,

Springer Journal Suggester
Find Journal Wiley

Journal finder lainnya dapat pula dilihat pada tautan ini

http://endnote.com/product-details/manuscript-matcher

http://guides.library.duq.edu/wheretopublish

https://www.journalguide.com/

https://www.edanzediting.com/journal-selector

Sila masukkan judul dan abstrak, kemudian pilih disiplin ilmunya (Fields of research), lalu klik FIND JOURNAL.

Semoga cocok.