Login or Register to make a submission.

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
  • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
  • The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
  • Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
  • The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Author Guidelines


Your name1*, Your co-author/supervisor2

1Your affiliation

2Your co-author/supervisor affiliation

*Your email



The abstract is a very brief overview of your ENTIRE study. It tells the reader WHAT you did, WHY you did it, HOW you did it, WHAT you found, and WHAT it means.

The abstract should briefly state the purpose of the research (introduction), how the problem was studied (methods), the principal findings (results), and what the findings mean (discussion and conclusion). It is important to be descriptive but concise--say only what is essential, using no more words than necessary to convey meaning.

 The Structure

  1. Re-establish the topic of the research.
  2. Give the research problem and/or main objective of the research (this usually comes first).
  3. Indicate the methodology used.
  4. Present the main findings.
  5. Present the main conclusions

 Keywords:Maximum can be 5 keywords.


1. Introduction

The introduction comes at the start of a piece of writing. It introduces the research by situating it (by giving background), presenting the research problem and saying how and why this problem will be "solved." Without this important information the reader cannot easily understand the more detailed information about the research that comes later in the paper. It also explains why the research is being done (rationale) which is crucial for the reader to understand the significance of the study.


The structure:

  1. What is the context of this problem? In what situation or environment can this problem be observed? (Background)
  2. Why is this research important? Who will benefit? Why do we need to know this? Why does this situation, method, model or piece of equipment need to be improved? (Rationale/justification)
  3. What is it we don’t know? What is the gap in our knowledge this research will fill? What needs to be improved? (Problem Statement)
  4. What steps will the researcher take to try and fill this gap or improve the situation? (Objectives)
  5. Is there any aspect of the problem the researcher will not discuss? Is the study limited to a specific geographical area or to only certain aspects of the situation? (Scope)


2. Literature Review/Related Works

It presents a critical look at the existing research that is significant to the work that you are carrying out. You cannot simply give a concise description of, for example, an article: you need to select what parts of the research to discuss (e.g. the methodology), show how it relates to the other work (e.g. What other methodologies have been used? How are they similar? How are they different?) and show how it relates to your work (what is its relationship to your methodology?).

Here are some of the questions your literature review should answer:

  1. What do we already know in the immediate area concerned?
  2. What are the characteristics of the key concepts or the main factors or variables?
  3. What are the relationships between these key concepts, factors or variables?
  4. What are the existing theories?
  5. Where are the inconsistencies or other shortcomings in our knowledge and understanding?
  6. What views need to be (further) tested?
  7. What evidence is lacking, inconclusive, contradictory or too limited?
  8. Why study (further) the research problem?
  9. What contribution can the present study be expected to make?
  10. What research designs or methods seem unsatisfactory?  


3. Material & Methodology 

  1. Explanation of how data was collected/generated, explanation of how data was analyzed explanation of methodological problems and their solutions or effects. We need to know how the data was obtained because the method affects the results.

For instance, if you are investigating users' perceptions of the efficiency of public transport in Yogyakarta, you will obtain different results if you use a multiple choice questionnaire than if you conduct interviews.

  1. Knowing how the data was collected helps the reader evaluate the validity and reliability of your results, and the conclusions you draw from them.
  2. The research methods must be appropriate to the objectives of the study. If you perform a case study of one commuter in order to investigate users' perceptions of the efficiency of public transport in Bangkok, your method is obviously unsuited to your objectives.
  3. The methodology should also discuss the problems that were anticipated and explain the steps taken to prevent them from occurring, and the problems that did occur and the ways their impact was minimized.

The Structure

  • Dataset and its collection method
  • Framework/Model
  • Technical Correctness (mathematical proving – if any)
  • Algorithm(if any)
  • Example (if any) 


4. Results and Discussion


  1. Statement of results: the results are presented in a format that is accessible to the reader (e.g. in a graph, table, diagram or written text).  Notice that raw data is usually put in an appendix, if it is included at all.
  2. Explanatory text: all graphs, tables, diagrams and figures should be accompanied by text that guides the reader's attention to significant results.  The text makes the results meaningful by pointing out the most important results, simplifying the results, highlighting significant trends or relationships, and perhaps commenting on whether certain results were expected or unexpected.


  1. Explanation of results: the writer comments on whether or not the results were expected, and presents explanations for the results, particularly for those that are unexpected or unsatisfactory.
  2. References to previous research: comparison of the results with those reported in the literature, or use of the literature to support a claim, hypothesis or deduction.
  3. Deduction: a claim for how the results can be applied more generally (a conclusion based on reasoning from the results, e.g. we fed fish a new feed, all the fish gained weight, therefore the new feed causes fish to gain weight).
  4. Hypothesis: a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results (which will be proved or disproved in later research). 


5. Conclusion

To give a summary of:

  1. What was learned (this usually comes first)
  2. What remains to be learned (directions for future research)
  3. The shortcomings of what was done (evaluation)
  4. The benefits, advantages, applications of the research (evaluation), and recommendations.



Include individuals who have assisted you in your study:

  1. Advisors
  2. Financial supporters
  3. Proofreaders
  4. Typists
  5. Suppliers who may have given materials



  1. Cite the main scientific publications on which your work is based. Cite only items that you have read.
  2. Do not inflate the manuscript with too many references (20-30 references only) – it doesn’t make it a better manuscript.
  3. Avoid excessive self‐
  4. Avoid excessive citations of publications from the same region.
  5. Check each reference against the original source (authors name, volume, issue, year, DOI Number).
  6. Carefully follow the journal’s instructions to authors.