Author Guidelines

 Journal of Pragmatics Research Author Guidelines

 General Organization of the Paper ¬ 12pt, Cambria

 

 The example will be like this:

 

 

  The list of authors should be arranged like this:

  *Author1, Author2, Author3  (Cambria. 11pt, Bold, Capitalize Each Word and Align Left).

Manuscripts submitted to this journal should follow the heading below: Title; Authors Name; Authors Affiliation; Abstract; Keywords; Introduction; Methods; Results & Discussion; Conclusions; and References. 

 Paper Title

This is your opportunity to attract the reader's attention. Remember that readers are the potential authors who will cite your article. Identify the central issue of the paper. Begin with the subject of the paper. The title should be accurate, unambiguous, specific, and complete. Do not contain infrequently-used abbreviations.  The title of the paper should be in 14 pt bold Arial.

 Authors' Name and Affiliations

Write Author(s) names without title and professional positions such as Prof, Dr, Production Manager, etc. Do not abbreviate your last/family name. Always give your First and Last names. Write clear affiliation of all Authors. Affiliation includes name of department/unit, (faculty), name of the university, address, and country.

Author names should be in 12 pt Cambria bold.  Author affiliations should be in 12 pt  Cambria.

 Abstract and Keywords

The Abstract should stand alone, meaning the abstract has no citation. Consider it the advertisement of your article. The Abstract should tell the prospective reader what you did and highlight the key findings. Avoid using technical jargon and uncommon abbreviations. The Abstract should be in one paragraph. The font is Cambria, 12 pt, italic, and justify. The abstract is in 200-250 words, which is followed by 3-5 keywords. 

The Abstract should briefly describe your entire paper. It comprises the purposes of the research, method, and the research findings. Keywords are the labels of your manuscript and are critical to correct indexing and searching. Therefore, the keywords should represent the content and highlight of your article.Use only those abbreviations that are firmly established in the field. A semicolon should separate each words/phrase in keyword (;), not a comma (,).

 INTRODUCTION

In the Introduction, the Authors should state the objectives of the work at the end of the introduction section. Before the purpose, the Authors should provide an adequate background and a concise literature survey 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 literature survey as Author by Author, but should be presented as a group per method or topic reviewed which refers to some literature.

This section discusses the purposes of the study or research problems, the contribution to knowledge, and the research gap. Please state them clearly in the beginning paragraph, supported by related theories in the next paragraphs.

INTRODUCTION to CONCLUSION should be 4.000 – 5.250 words.

 

 RESEARCH METHODS

Materials and methods should allow readers to reproduce the experiment. Provide sufficient detail to enable the work to be reproduced. Methods already published should be indicated by a reference; only relevant modifications should be described. Refrain from repeating the details of established methods.

This section explains the rationale for applying specific approaches, methods, procedures, or techniques used to identify, select, and analyze information applied to understand the research problem/project, allowing readers to critically evaluate your project’s overall validity and reliability.

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results should be clear and concise. The results should summarize (scientific) findings rather than provide data in great detail. Please highlight the 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.

 The discussion is written to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the issues being investigated and to explain any new understanding or insights about the problem after considering the findings. It should connect to the Introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but it does not simply repeat or rearrange the Introduction; this section should always explain how your study has moved the reader's understanding of the research problem forward from where you left them at the end of the Introduction.

 The research findings in the form of research data are further discussed or critically interpreted with a particular relevant theoretical approach. Data can also be supported with the presentation of tables, images, etc. Captions for the table is written above it with sequenced numbering so that it can be easily referred to, though not put under the pointing sentence/ paragraph. Line (border) to the table is made minimalist by eliminating the vertical lines and leaving horizontal lines deemed necessary. Captions for images are placed below the picture, also providing sequenced numbering. One page only accommodates a table or an image with a maximum of two-thirds the size of the page (size adjusted as efficiently as possible).

 In discussion, it is the most essential section of your article. Here you get the chance to sell your data. Make the discussion correspond to the results, but do not reiterate the results. Often should begin with a summary of the leading scientific findings (not experimental results). The following components should be covered in the discussion: How do your results relate to the original question or objectives outlined in the Introduction section (what)? Do you provide an interpretation scientifically for each of your results or findings presented (why)? Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported (So what or What else)? Or are there any differences?

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions should only answer the objectives of the research. Tells how your work advances the field from the present state of knowledge. Without clear Conclusions, reviewers and readers will find it difficult to judge the work and whether or not it merits publication in the journal. Do not repeat the Abstract or just list experimental results. Provide a clear scientific justification for your work, and indicate possible applications and extensions. Suggesting future experiments and/or pointing out those underways would be best.

 REFERENCES

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 original source (Author's name, volume, issue, year, DOI Number). Please use Reference Manager Applications like EndNote, Mendeley, Zotero, etc. Use other published articles in the same journal as models.

 REFERENCES  ← 12pt, Cambria bold   (should use APA 7th referencing style. References Should be Typed in Alphabetical Order, Cambria Font size of heading 12, 1,5 spaced and the minimum requirement is 20 references and it is suggested to use reference software like Mendeley or Zotero)

 Fletcher, D. P. (2018). Disrupters: Success strategies from women who break the mold. Entrepreneur Press.

Hernández-Romero, L. (2017). Re-evaluating creativity: The individual, society, and education. Palgrave Macmillan.

 Haile, L., Gallagher, M., & Robertson, R. J. (2015). Perceived exertion laboratory manual: From standard practice to contemporary application. Springer. https://doi-org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1917-8

Marion, T., Reese, V., & Wagner, R. F. (2018). Dermatologic features in good film characters who turn evil: The transformation. Dermatology Online Journal, 24(9), Article 4. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1666h4z5

Mosek, E. (2017). Team flow: The missing piece in performance [Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University]. Victoria University Research Repository. http://vuir.vu.edu.au/35038/

Perry, S. M. (Ed.). (2018). Maximizing social science research through publicly accessible data sets. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3616-1

Ruxton, C. (2016). Tea: Hydration and other health benefits. Primary Health Care, 26(8), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.7748/phc.2016.e1162

Shah, T. H. (2018). Big data analytics in higher education. In S. M. Perry (Ed.), Maximizing social science research through publicly accessible data sets (pp. 38-61). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3616-1