Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
untuk Indonesia dengan beberapa asumsi. Asumsi pertama
adalah jika para dosen pembimbing dapat menulis bersama
mahasiswanya dalam mempublikasikan hasil-hasil riset
yang dilakukan. Jika setengah saja dari 2500 dosen di UI
menulis dan setengah dari jumlah tersebut menulis di
jurnal internasional, maka dengan asumsi rejection rate
pada jurnal internasional rata-rata sebesar 0,75, UI akan
dapat mempublikasikan tambahan 156 naskah di jurnal
internasional dari rata-rata publikasi sebanyak 160 artikel
per tahun yang tercatat di SCOPUS. Jumlah ini belum
termasuk jumlah publikasi UI yang tercatat di database
yang tidak terbaca oleh SCOPUS. Asumsi kedua, para dosen
inti berhasil mempublikasikan masing-masing minimal
satu artikel setahun. Dengan dukungan skema hibah riset
untuk riset berkualitas dan pengembangan budaya menulis
untuk peningkatan publikasikan hasil riset, diharapkan
UI dapat memberikan kontribusi yang signifikan dalam
pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi.
Sebagai penutup, masih besarnya gap antara harapan
dan kenyataan ini tentu menjadi masukan UI (DRPM) dalam
melihat efektivitas program-program hibah riset internal dan
eksternal juga efektivitas skema dosen inti. Jika program-
program tersebut berjalan dengan baik dan mendapatkan
respon positif dari seluruh periset UI, maka UI mulai 2012
ini bukan hanya dapat bersaing di tingkat regional ASEAN,
namun juga di tingkat Asia dan dunia.
Sumber:
William, A. (2011). "Menristek: Kebutuhan Dana Penelitian Rp. 63 Triliun". Jumat, 22 April 2011. Diunduh dari www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/iptek/2011/04/22/brk,20110422-329366.id.html pada 21 Juni 2011
_
Agustino Zulys, doktor di bidang kimia anorganik, adalah Kepala
Subdit Pelayanan dan Pengabdian Masyarakat DRPM UI
vo
l. 0
4 N
o. 0
3 ju
li 1
1W
arta
DR
PM3
Tips for Good WritingDRPM UI Workshop
TITLE
Title must reflect content, be eye catching,
no more than 12 words, has a word or two of what you
contribute to the discipline
ABSTRACT
First sentence states what your contribution to
literature is, then say what you are doing different from
others. In just about 200 words state why this research
was done, how you did it, what significant contribution you
make, and what next. TIP: write this after you complete the
paper, and edit it several times. Warning: Until you become
an established researcher, DO NOT write abstract first.
Remember, this is the first thing the editor reads, so also the
reviewer. Think of it as the photo of what comes later in an
album, which is your research paper. So, it is important to
have this done well.
INTRODUCTION
First sentence states... “This paper aims to make
original contribution in such and such area by doing what,
and finding what”: this gets the attention of the editor and
reviewer (orang-orang tersibuh) After that write one or two
paragraphs on what you are doing in this paper: you must
cite some very recent published paper(s) here to give
relevance to continued interest, especially pointing to how
your paper builds on other studies. One paragraph on why
you are doing to create original contribution of some kind.
One paragraph on likely policy or applied implication that
may arise from your findings (only if relevant: since not all
papers have policy relevance, especially if the topic has
“insignificant” policy-relevance). One more paragraph of
how the rest of the paper is organised: at the end of this
paragraph state whether your findings supports, or extend
current writing or rejects existing. TIP: Try to have no more
than 2 pages, possible one page!
Prof. Mohamed Ariff (Bond University, Australia) menyampaikan tips yang perlu diperhatikan dalam penulisan
hasil riset. Materi ini diberikan pada Pelatihan Penulisan Artikel Ilmiah untuk Jurnal Internasional Rumpun Sosial-
Humaniora, Selasa, 26 Oktober 2010
vo
l. 0
4 N
o. 0
3 ju
li 1
1W
arta
DR
PM4
THEORY/CONCEPTS/EVIDENCE
Try and divide this into three sub-sections:
Theories; Evidence for & against; Discussion. Theory
subsection only summarizes what are directly relevant
theories. Express in formula or in charts, key to good writing
is brevity. Evidence section selects (i) classic papers and the
(ii) most recent relevant papers. Summarise them to support
where your contribution lies, and what exactly is the
contribution (this is the part editors look for to send a paper
for review). A short discussion in this sub-section is meant
to summarise and identify the research problem from the
review in this section. Sometimes, you may even write the
research question here. TIPS: No more than 10-12 pages.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
No simple rules. Decided by discipline you are in,
but this section is very important. Methodology can break
or make your paper. Simple rules: know the current best
method in your field in your study; know if you can break
new grounds from borrowing other methodology to improve
past methodology; wander to other disciplines (even though
there is resistance to this) because this is where “original”
contribution could well be. TIP: Develop the hypotheses
here clearly. Editors like well-developed hypotheses. Break
hypotheses into major and subsidiary hypotheses. Do not
have more than about half a dozen hypotheses.
FINDINGS
This section is your product, MUST be half the
paper in size. If you take a 30-page paper, then this section
must be about 12-15 pages. Often this is difficult to write
because authors leave a lot to be “guessed” by the reader/
reviewer, which is wrong-minded. Each table or graph
must be followed by a paragraph of description of what
the table/graph is purported to do in the paper. Take the
statistics, such as coefficients, means, t-statistics, etc. and
quote it in the description following the table/graph: often
inexperienced writers do not do that, and that puts a heavy
load of work on the reviewer to actually examine and guess.
You are the writer, and the guessing by reviewer is likely
to be wrong. Divide this into sub-sections, each section
dealing with: descriptive statistics; hypothesis one results;
hypotheses two results, etc. This way you get to focus the
paper well thus improve “clarity” of presentation. Quote
the statistics in the text rather than just say “Table 2 shows
the results, and confirms the theory”!!! TIP: Edit this section
again and again with the idea of “can outsider understand
what I have done?” Remember you have to dress up this
part very well because this is YOUR work, and the rest of
the paper is someone else’s work as summarised by you. So,
do read, and read, and re-write and re-write until you get it
right.
CONCLUSION
Just three paragraphs to summarise. What you
set out to do in this paper? How you managed to attempt
to answer the research issue? What have your found? If
needed, state in few sentences, what the limitation(s) of this
study are, and how others can extend your study to more
generalisable level. TIP: No more than one page, and this is
Mohamed Ariff is a Professor of
Finance at the Bond University,
a private university in Australia.
Previously, he held the chair in
finance for over 10 years and
was served as head of Monash
University’s Finance faculty for six
years. For 14 years, he worked at
The National University of Singapore teaching finance, prior to
taking the finance chair in Monash. He received his post-graduate
education at the University of Wisconsin Madison and The
University of Queensland (PhD) after an upper II honours degree
from The University of Singapore.
His research articles in international journals and books
are widely cited. He has worked as a visiting scholar/fellow/
professor in several universities: Boston, Harvard, Melbourne, Tokyo
(1992; 2008), UCD of Ireland (1991; 2004), University of Evansville
(2004), and UUM (CIMB Chair 1997-2002).
vo
l. 0
4 N
o. 0
3 ju
li 1
1W
arta
DR
PM5
what reviewers read first, before reading eh full paper, so
edit it well!
APPENDICES
Place in appendices extra details, if needed
only or if you cannot accommodate it within the 30-page
limitation you impose on yourself. Let us make it 30-35
pages! Simple rules: if the method you use is well known,
and it is necessary to write about it, then put in Appendix
a short description of the method and all the relevant
formulas. Limit the appendix to few pages. Appendix comes
before references.
REFERENCES
Three simple rules because this part is not
contribution to literature, it is old stuff, and does not
deserve US$ 700 per page in several pages to print. (i) Only
cite journal articles except if the working paper is from
experts, avoid books, unless it is relevant. (ii) Choose the
latest review article, and delete as many articles as covered
in the review article. (iii) Ensure you have the latest article
cited: e.g. If your submission in 2011, make sure you have
at least one 2010 article. TIP: Limit references to no more
than 2 pages, and make sure you follow the journal style
STRICLY as per Journal’s Author Guidelines and do not miss
including articles already cited.
Ex cetera of Publications
These days, with so many people wanting
to publish, editors have begun to ask paper-writers to
“professionally edit” papers. What it means is that you
improve the readability fo the paper so that the language
used while being technical is also readable by ordinary
readers of the Journal. The simplest way you can do that is
to “mimick” how other articles in a journal has been written:
study the title, the abstract; study the format; study the
section headings; sizes of different sections; simply read
the readability of such papers and compare that to yours.
The other method is to actually employ a English-language
editor to edit the paper. I have successes doing this; not
always, as once a while, even after a professional edit, the
editor sends a rejection.
Presentation in staff seminars is a must in some
other university than yours. Usually people are willing
to criticise (in Australia) if you are not from the same
university. Also, get a close friend with good publications
to read and (if possible) to do a track change editing of a
paper. If you study the changes he/she makes, you will learn
a lot on how to write better.
One should also have the ability to spot the
“right” journal for the paper. Often articles are sent to wrong
journals, and so get rejected. What is a wrong journal? We
know top-top journals usually publish “heavy original”
contributions. Most of us seldom have the privilege of
doing such high level work. So, do not send to top-top
journals. Then search for journals in the field by identifying
if a journal has published a paper closer to your paper.
That is the way to spot the right journal. In this matter, it
will be good to have your Department head or some well-
published author advice you.
One also needs patience in all these matters
because publishing can be a frightful experience of
getting one acceptance and several rejections. So, the
rejections must be studied carefully to see why it ended
as rejection, and then send to a lower level journal. Just
do not waste completed papers, rewrite slightly and find a
journal somewhere to publish. Most of us just throw away
twice-rejected papers, although one should not leave a
completed paper without a home. After all the name of the
game is to publish in any journal, not forgetting to publish
10% of one’s paper in reasonable top journals. The rest of
is experience, you get better with each rejection and each
acceptance. It is only in our profession, we decide what we
want to research, and the field for inquiry and publications
is so wide.