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.