WORKSHOP PENULISAN ARTIKEL ILMIAH MAHASISWA PASCASARJANA TAHUN 2026

Summary

The video combines a Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology promotional segment with an online workshop for postgraduate students on turning research into publishable scientific articles. The workshop’s three main themes were using data to build a manuscript, understanding article structure and choosing a suitable journal, and maintaining research and publication integrity.

1. Workshop purpose and format

• Organizers described the workshop as part of efforts to develop early-career researchers and postgraduate students.
• The online session was presented as an introduction to a follow-up, in-person workshop in Surabaya, scheduled for November 10–12, 2026. The planned follow-up would include coaching on participants’ manuscript drafts, independent work, and a plenary session.
• Organizers hoped participants would develop manuscripts suitable for submission to reputable indexed journals. They encouraged attendees to continue beyond the training and work toward submission and publication.

2. Turning research data into a manuscript

Professor Usep Suhud demonstrated a workflow for using generative AI—particularly ChatGPT—to assist with data processing and manuscript drafting. He emphasized that AI is a tool, not a substitute for the researcher’s judgment or verification.

Demonstrated workflow

1. Prepare and organize the data

   • Create questionnaires using a survey tool such as Microsoft Forms.
   • Export the responses to Excel and provide the data file to the AI tool.
   • Use an article structure with sections such as the literature review, research methods, results, conclusion, and references. Methods may include sampling, measurement, and data analysis.

2. Request tables and statistical summaries

   • Ask the AI to produce a respondent-profile table, specifying how incomplete responses should be treated.
   • Request validity and reliability analyses, including exploratory factor analysis, average variance extracted (AVE), and reliability measures such as Cronbach’s alpha.
   • Ask it to list the indicators for each variable.
   • Transfer generated tables to Excel for checking and formatting before moving them into Word.

3. Check every result

   • Compare AI-generated tables, statistics, and model values against the original data or other analyses.
   • Correct errors rather than accepting generated results automatically.
   • Suhud said his own comparisons had matched his manual results, but he also warned that outputs may be inaccurate and must be checked.

4. Generate figures and hypotheses

   • Provide an image or file containing a research model and ask the AI to make a structural diagram.
   • Use a plain, black-and-white figure for a manuscript, and include the relevant path or beta values.
   • Verify that every value in the generated figure matches the source. The demonstration contained discrepancies that needed correction.
   • The AI can also help list hypotheses from a diagram, but the researcher must check their order and wording.

5. Draft and refine the manuscript

   • Use the research model to generate an outline for the introduction, then develop it into paragraphs.
   • Ask for citations from relevant, searchable scholarly sources and specify a bibliography style.
   • Check that citations are real and support the claims made. The speaker advised against crowding many citations into one sentence.
   • Researchers may draft in Indonesian if that is more comfortable, or in English if they prefer to avoid a later translation step.
   • Format and edit the text for readability; the speaker gave Times New Roman 12-point font and 1.5 spacing as an example.

6. Use AI responsibly

   • Do not hand over responsibility for research decisions to AI.
   • Verify statistical results, citations, diagrams, and prose.
   • Be prepared to disclose AI use and describe its role when a journal asks for that information.
   • Detailed paraphrasing and AI-detection questions were not covered in the short online session; organizers said these could be addressed in the longer in-person workshop.

3. Article structure and journal selection

Professor Suryadi Ismaji explained that each part of an article serves a distinct purpose, and that weak structure or an unclear contribution can lead to editorial rejection.

Core parts of a research article

• Title: Be informative and specific. It should identify the research object, central phenomenon, and distinguishing context rather than making a broad or generic claim.
• Abstract: Summarize the context, objective, approach, main results, significance, and limitations.
• Introduction: Move from the broader problem to the specific research question. Explain what is already known, identify a meaningful research gap, and state the study’s objectives and contribution. The speaker recommended keeping the introduction concise; in some journals, it may need to be especially short.
• Literature review and theory: Use relevant literature to explain the proposed relationships or mechanisms. Do not include sources merely to increase citation counts.
• Hypotheses: Develop testable predictions from theory and prior evidence. Keep hypotheses distinct from exploratory interpretations made after examining the data.
• Methods: Give enough detail for the study to be understood and, where applicable, replicated. Describe the design, participants or data, and analysis. Obtain appropriate ethical clearance where research involves human participants or animals.
• Results and discussion: Report what the evidence shows and discuss it without making claims that go beyond the data. Unexpected or negative findings are not automatically errors; explain them and support interpretations with evidence.
• Figures and tables: Make them clear and sufficiently self-explanatory. Captions should help readers understand what is shown, and figures and tables should not duplicate one another unnecessarily.
• Conclusion: Answer the study’s central objective and highlight its strongest findings. Do not simply copy the abstract. Include appropriate theoretical or practical implications and limitations.
• Publication statements: Prepare accurate information about author contributions, references, funding, data availability, and AI use where required.

Choosing a journal

• Start by matching the manuscript’s topic and scope to the journal’s stated aims and scope.
• Compare candidate journals’ article types, policies, editorial practices, publisher identity, fees, access model, and indexing status.
• The speaker discussed Scopus and Web of Science and noted that quartile rankings can differ across subject categories. Researchers should check the relevant category and verify a journal’s current status.
• Be cautious about journals that promise guaranteed acceptance, have unclear identities or fees, make misleading indexing claims, or appear to offer implausibly rapid review.
• Consider the trade-offs between subscription, open-access, and other publishing models, including publication costs.
• Prefer relevant, reputable primary sources in the reference list. The speaker advised against relying heavily on difficult-to-verify “grey” sources when targeting international journals.
• Journal fit, transparency, and credibility matter; publishing in a journal with a high ranking does not remove the need for sound research and a well-supported manuscript.

4. Research and publication ethics

Dr. Charles P. Simanjuntak emphasized that integrity must guide the entire research process, not only the writing stage. He identified honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage as fundamental values.

Good research and publication practice

• Collect, analyze, and present data honestly and accurately; do not fabricate or alter data to fit a hypothesis.
• Avoid bias and be transparent about methods, data, and analysis.
• Protect participants’ privacy and confidentiality, and avoid discrimination in recruitment or treatment.
• Obtain relevant ethical approval, including animal-research approval where applicable.
• Give appropriate credit to contributors and sources; clarify authorship and contributions.
• Manage conflicts of interest and conduct peer review fairly and confidentially.
• Be prepared for scrutiny after publication, including questions about data and methods.

Misconduct and plagiarism discussed

The speaker warned against data fabrication and falsification, duplicate or redundant publication, unauthorized authorship, ghostwriting, citation manipulation, and misconduct in peer review. He also outlined forms of plagiarism, including:

• Verbatim copying without quotation marks or attribution.
• Paraphrasing another person’s ideas without citing the source.
• Mosaic or patchwork writing assembled from fragments of other texts.
• Collusion or presenting work written by someone else as one’s own.
• Reusing distinctive expressions or phrasing without attribution.
• Citing a secondary source as if the original source had been consulted.
• Self-plagiarism, such as reusing one’s already-published text without appropriate disclosure or permission.
• Unintentional omission of attribution.
• Claiming another person’s entire work as one’s own.
• Invalid or misleading citations that attribute claims to sources that do not actually support them.

Ways to reduce the risk of plagiarism

• Paraphrase genuinely, while still citing the source of the idea.
• Use quotation marks and proper citations for direct quotations, following the journal’s rules.
• Provide complete references and verify that citations accurately represent the cited work.
• Obtain permission when reusing copyrighted figures or other material.
• Check a manuscript for similarity before submission, while recognizing that journals have different policies and thresholds.
• Follow applicable institutional and national rules. The speaker cited Indonesia’s Regulation No. 39 of 2021 on academic integrity and described possible consequences, including academic sanctions for students and administrative or career consequences for lecturers.

5. Questions and closing points

During the Q&A, a participant asked whether repeating the same reference in a bibliography would count as self-plagiarism. The response was that reference lists are generally excluded from similarity comparisons, though manuscripts should still follow the journal’s requirements.

Other questions concerned paraphrasing, AI use and similarity detection, and how to identify a suitable journal. The presenters advised checking journal scope, looking for clear confirmation of submission, and being cautious if a journal does not acknowledge receipt or communicate transparently. They also noted that the session was short and that some topics would receive fuller treatment in the in-person workshop.

The closing remarks brought together the session’s three main lessons: organize and verify research data, write each part of the article for its proper purpose, and maintain ethical standards throughout research and publication.

Speakers and sources featured

• Promotional voice-over for the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, describing national priorities in higher education, research, innovation, and technology.
• Cahaya Robiul Sami (also rendered in the subtitles as “Cahaya Robius Sani”), master of ceremonies.
• Yunisam (the name is inconsistently transcribed), representing the Head of the Competency Team, who gave the opening remarks on behalf of the Directorate of Research and Development Talent Development.
• Prof. Usep Suhud, speaker on using data and AI to develop a manuscript.
• Prof. Suryadi Ismaji (also transcribed as Ismaciji), speaker on article structure and journal selection.
• Dr. Charles P. Simanjuntak, speaker on research ethics, publication ethics, and plagiarism.
• Prof. Feli / Prof. Felicia (name varies in the subtitles), moderator.
• Q&A participants: Badarudin Anwar, Dewa Ayu Dia, Nur Habita, and Dudung Salahudin.
• Other person mentioned: Prof. Heri Koswanto was named in the opening as Director of Talent Development, but the subtitles do not clearly identify him as a speaker.