The document discusses the use of information technology in scientific article writing and publication strategies. It provides examples of digital tools that can help with tasks like finding relevant papers, summarizing research, editing manuscripts, and improving writing quality. AI tools are presented that can assist with activities involving scientific publications such as paper editing, paraphrasing sentences, and journal review. Guidelines are offered for selecting suitable journals for publication and navigating the submission process.

1. Pemanfaatan Teknologi Informasi dalam
Penulisan Artikel Ilmiah dan Strategi
Pemilihan Berkala
Pendampingan Penulisan Artikel Imiah
Diselenggarakan oleh:
Direktorat Riset, Teknologi dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat
Kementerian Pendidikan Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi

2. ICT on Scientific Publication
• Technology also immensely improves research skills in academic
writing.
• Technology has impacted academic writing skills both positively and
negatively.
• Digital tools like grammar checkers, citation generators, audio
converters, editors, and vocabulary boosters improve academic
writing skills by saving time, increasing creativity, collaboration, faster
revisions, and thoughtfulness.

3. AI for Scientific Manuscript
• Elicit find papers, extract key claims, summarize, brainstorm ideas,
https://elicit.org/
• Finding and synthesizing research paper with Research Rabbit,
https://researchrabbitapp.com/
• Main mapping with Obsidian personal knowledge base and note-
taking software application, https://obsidian.md/
• Paper editing with Writefull, https://www.writefull.com/
• ChatGPT improving quality of scientific manuscript https://
https://openai.com/
• Bing Chat with Microsoft https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/edge/features/bing-chat?form=MT00D8

4. • Bard, improving quality of scientific manuscript.
https://bard.google.com
• Hypotenusa.ai, write an article and paraphrase sentences.
https://www.hypotenuse.ai
• Humata.ai, jurnal review. https://www.humata.ai
• Create a automatically. https://www.slidesai.io

5. Digital Transformation and AI in Higher
Education
• Semua tools yang menggunakan teknologi AI
• Stages of an AI audit in higher education, Understand, Decide, and
Monitor

8. Understand the current situation
• What relevant policies or regulations currently exist? On the use of AI
On privacy and data protection On related areas (e.g., plagiarism,
safeguarding)
• What external policies or regulations does the HEI need to account
for (e.g., from government or research funders)?
• Which types of AI are currently being used in this HEI? In which
functions or units?
• Do all stakeholders (faculty, staff, students) have access to these
tools?
• How is training and support provided?

9. Preparation

10. Selection of Suitable Journal for Publication
Journal should be related to the area of your paper
Journal Citation Report (WoS, Scopus, Sinta)
Journal metric (H index, SJR, Cite Score, IF)
Publisher (Elsevier, Springer, IEEE, Wiley, Sage, Nature,
Taylor&Francis)
History of journal (how old) (achieves, Scopus data base)
Review process ( Editorial Information)
Almetric Ranking (Pengaruh jurnal di media social)

11. • Full article / Original articles: the most important papers. Often
substantial and significant completed pieces of research.
• Letter / Rapid Communications/ Short communications: quick and
early communication of significant and original advances. Much
shorter than full articles (check limitations).
• Review paper/ perspectives: summarize recent developments on a
specific topic. Highlight important previously reported points. Not the
place to introduce new information. Often invited.
Self-evaluate your work. Is it sufficient for a full article? Or are your
results so thrilling that they should be shown as soon as possible?
Ask your supervisor and your colleagues for advice on manuscript type.
Sometimes outsiders can see things more clearly than you.
Peer-Reviewed Publication

12. Non-Peer-Reviewed Publication (Open Science)
Preprints are research papers shared before peer review. Here we
discuss the benefits to authors including rapid credit, visibility &
feedback.
Most researchers don’t share their work until after it’s been
published in a journal. Due to lengthy publication times, this can
result in delays of months, sometimes years. Authors are
understandably frustrated by the amount of time it takes to share
their research & reap the benefits of a published, citable research
article.
• https://arxiv.org/
• https://www.medrxiv.org/
• https://www.researchsquare.com/
• https://osf.io/

13. Finding research article
• https://www.scopus.com/home.uri
• https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish
• https://scholar.google.com/
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
• https://www.researchgate.net/
• https://sci-hub.se/
• https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/

14. Reference Management Software
• Reference management software, citation management software or personal
bibliographic management software is software for authors to use for recording
and utilising bibliographic citations (references). Once a citation has been recorded,
it can be used time and again in generating bibliographies, such as lists of
references in articles.
• These software packages normally consist of a database in which full bibliographic
references can be entered, plus a system for generating selective lists or articles in
the different formats required by publishers and learned journals. Modern
reference management packages can usually be integrated with word processors so
that a reference list in the appropriate format is produced automatically as an
article is written, reducing the risk that a cited source is not included in the
reference list.
• Examples: Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, BibTeX ;

15. Jurnal Predator
• Jeffrey Beall menyebut sebagai “potential, possible, or probable predatory
scholarly open-access publishers”.
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) menggunakan istilah
“questionable journals” (jurnal meragukan).
• Alternatif lainnya: deceptive journals, dubious journals.
Berbeda tapi sama:
• Beda: tingkatan & jenis praktek yang merugikan (misleading s.d. menipu).
• Sama: sebaiknya dihindari, karena menawarkan pelayanan kualitas rendah,
membahayakan reputasi penulis.

16. Penulis pada Jurnal dan Konferensi Predator
• The Naïve Contributor (kontributor lugu)
• Awalnya tidak paham; akhirnya sadar mereka tidak diuntungkan,
justru reputasi bisa rusak.
• The Cognizant Contributor (kontributor sadar)
• Hubungannya dengan jurnal/konferensi bersifat saling
menguntungkan, karena mereka mendapatkan benefit untuk
karir mereka.
• The PseudoScientist (ilmuwan semu)
• Juga mendapatkan benefit, karena memperoleh jalan untuk tampil
sebagai expert, dengan hasil penelitian yang tidak valid atau
mustahil.

17. Parameter Indicator
• Tidak ada proses review
• Banyak penulis dari 1 negara (ex Indonesia)
• Website jurnal berbeda dengan website asli (hijack journal)
• Data history (arsip artikel) tidak baik

18. Subscription or Gold Open Access

19. Predatory Journal

22. Periksa
• Think Check Submit, yang beralamat di https://thinkchecksubmit.org/.
Atau https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals/indonesian/. Web ini berisi
pertanyaan-pertanyaan pada tiap bagian, mulai dari Think, Check, dan
Submit. Pertanyaan ini dapat memandu kita dalam menilai jurnal
• SciRev, yang beralamat di https://scirev.org/. Web ini berisi berbagai
pengalaman terkait waktu yang dibutuhkan dalam pengelolaan manuskrip.
Mulai dari durasi review, waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk reject artikel. Serta
karakter peer review. Kemudian terdapat nilai akhirnya. Testimoni yang
ada di dalam web ini, bermanfaat untuk pertimbangan orang dalam
memutuskan submit atau tidak.
• Penanda Akses Terbuka Berkualitas https://www.qoam.eu. Indikator
Kualitas Layanan dalam/quality open access marker (QOAM) menandai
integritas dan kualitas layanan penerbitan jurnal ilmiah yang menerbitkan
artikel dalam penawaran akses terbuka. Penilaian kualitas didasarkan pada
sumber kerumunan akademik

26. Translator Tools
• Google translator with NLP https://translate.google.com/
• Microsoft translator with AI https://www.bing.com/translator
• DeepL Translator neural machine
translation https://www.deepl.com/translator
• https://www.linguee.com

27. Paraphrase Tools
• Quilbot AI https://quillbot.com
• Paraphraser.io https://www.paraphraser.io
• Paraphrasing Toll-AI –based Online – Editpad
https://www.editpad.org/tool/paraphrasing-tool
• Translator (Translate and edit in Indonesian language)

28. Grammar Cheeker Tools
• Grammarly:free online writing assistant
https://www.grammarly.com
• Quilbot AI https://quillbot.com
• Free grammar checker & paraphrase by Ginger,
https://www.gingersoftware.com/grammarcheck

29. Submission

30. Submission
• Journal Finder
• Proof Edit
• Similarity Cheeker
• Submission system
• Cover Letter
• Graphical Abstract

31. Submission process

32. Journal Finder
https://journalsuggester.springer.com/
https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/
https://journalfinder.wiley.com/search?type=match
https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-
your-research/choosing-a-journal/journal-suggester/
• JANE ( journal /author name estimator)
https://jane.biosemantics.org/
• Web of Science Master list https://mjl.clarivate.com/home
https://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/

33. Journal Finder

34. Journal Finder

36. The Sample of Professional Proof Read/Edit
• https://www.aje.com/
• https://www.scribendi.com/
• https://www.inago.com/
• https://webshop.elsevier.com/language-editing-services/language-
editing/
• https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-
author-helpdesk/e-proofing
• https://www.editage.com

37. Similarity Cheeker
• Plagiarism checker by Ithenticate
https://www.ithenticate.com/
• academic integrity, streamline grading and feedback, deter
plagiarism, and improve student outcomes by Turnitin.
https://www.turnitin.com/
• Online plagiarism check services
https://www.plagiarismcheckerx.com/
• Online plagiarism cheeking
https://www.plagscan.com/en/

38. Revision before submission – checklist
Reasons for early rejection: content
(aims and scope)
• Paper is of limited interest or covers
local issues only (sample type,
geography, specific product, etc.).
• Paper is a routine application of well-
known methods
• Paper presents an incremental advance
or is limited in scope
• Novelty and significance are not
immediately evident or sufficiently
well-justified
What should you check?
• Is your work of interest to an international
audience?
• Does the work add significant value to an
existing method?
• Is the perspective consistent with the
journal?
• Are the right conclusions drawn from the
results?
• Does your work add to the existing body of
knowledge? – Just because it has not been
done before is no justification for doing it
now. And just because you have done the
study does not mean that is very
important!

39. Revision before submission – checklist
Reasons for early rejection:
Preparation
• Failure to meet submission
requirements
• Incomplete coverage of
literature
• Unacceptably poor English
What should you check?
• Read the Guide for Authors again! Check your
manuscript point by point. Make sure every
aspect of the manuscript is in accordance
with the guidelines. (Word count, layout of
the text and illustrations, format of the
references and in-text citations, etc.)
• Are there too many self-citations, or
references that are difficult for the
international reader to access?
• Did the first readers of your manuscript easily
grasp the essence? Correct all the
grammatical and spelling mistakes.

40. Submission System (Editorial Website)

41. Cover Letter
Dear Editor:
I wish to publish the captioned paper in Scientific Reports.
This study aimed to improve an algorithm for delineating 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) using an automated
feature extraction method—Deep Learning (DL). The DL architecture consists of a convolutional neural network
(CNN) for feature extraction and bidirectional long short-term memory (bidirectional LSTM/BiLSTM) as a
classifier for 12-lead ECG. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to implement and explore DL to
delineate 12-lead ECG. Our goal was to improve the delineation model with automated feature representation
to 12-lead ECG.
The attached file is an original manuscript for your consideration. We state that this paper has not been
published, or submitted for publication, elsewhere. I look forward to hearing a positive response from you.
Thank for your kind attention.
Prof. Siti Nurmaini
Intelligent System Research Group, Faculty of Computer Science
Universitas Sriwijaya, Palembang 30139, Indonesia
Phone: (+62) 8526 8048 092
E-mail: siti_nurmaini@unsri.ac.id, sitinurmaini@gmail.com

42. Cover Letter
Dear Editor….:
Please find enclosed our manuscript “Cluster Formation and Rheology of
Photoreactive Nanoparticles”.
We studied the cluster formation of photoreactive nanoparticles upon irradiation, and
the effect of this process on the rheological behavior of dilute colloidal dispersions.
Since our work should be of interest to many readers of ………., we have decided to
submit our paper to your journal, hoping you will find it acceptable for publication.
Sincerely
…………

43. 43
Graphical Abstract

44. 44

45. Responding to Editor/Reviewer

46. Why?
• The peer-review system is grossly overloaded and editors wish to
use reviewers only for those papers with a good probability of
acceptance.
• It is a disservice to ask reviewers to spend time on work that has
clear and evident deficiencies.
Initial Editorial Review
Many journals use a system of initial editorial review. Editors
may reject a manuscript without sending it for review

47. Review Process
• Single Blind Review
• Reviewers know the authors
• Authors do not know the reviewer
• Double Blind Review
• Reviewers do not know the authors
• Authors do not know the reviewers
• Review Forum (Public)
• Reviewers know the authors
• Authors do not know/know the reviewers
• Springer Nature, Frontiers, F1000 research, MDPI others

48. Review Process
• Consider reviewing as a procedure in which several peers
discuss your work. Learn from their comments, and join the
discussion.
• Nearly every manuscript requires revision.
• Bear in mind that editors and reviewers mean to help you
improve your article
• Do not take offense.
• Minor revision does NOT guarantee acceptance after revision.
• Do not count on acceptance, but address all comments
carefully
• Revise the whole manuscript
• not just the parts the reviewers point out

49. Responding to the Reviewer
Acceptance without revision
• You need take no further action untile the proofs reach you, except prehaps write
a note thanking the editor.
Minor revisions requested (“accepted“)
• Consider the suggestions carefully, and if you agree that they will improve the
paper, modify or rewrite sentences or sections as necessary. Retype any heavily
corrected pages before you return the paper to the editor, but enclose the
original corrected paper as well as the retyped copies. In your covering letter sent
with the revised version, thank the editor and referees for their help and enclose
a list of the substantial changes made in response to their suggestions; if you
have rejected one or more of the recommendations, explain why.

50. Responding to the Reviewer
Major revisions requested (“further consideration“)
• You will have to think hard if the effort is worth while. You may eventually decide
that the paper is better as it is, and proceed to try another editor (another journal)
in the hope that he will agree with you.
Rejection
• If the editor says the article is too specialized or outside the scope of the journal,
your best course is to send it to another journal, first modifying the style to comply
with the instructions of that journal.
• If the article is rejected because is is said to be too long and in need of changes,
consider shortening and modifying it according to the criticism – and then submit it
to a different journal (if the editor had wanted to see a shorter version he would
have offered to reconsider it after revision!).

51. Editor Decision
Rejection (continued)
• If the editor thinks the findings reported are unsound or that the
evidence is incomplete, put the paper aside until you have obtained
more and better information, unless you are sure that the editor and
his advisers are wrong.
• Consider contesting the decision only if you honestly think, after
considerable reflection and at least one night‘s sleep, that the editor
and referees have made a superficial or wrong judgement. In this case
write a polite letter explaining as briefly as possible why you think the
editor should reconsider his decision.

52. After Acceptance

53. Accepted/Promoting
 Platforms
 Press Releases
 Article collections
 Share links

54. Media
• Email
• Scholarly Collaboration Networks
• Blogging
• Youtube / Videos
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Google Scholar
• Kudos
• LinkedIn
• Google Alerts
• Article Promotion Services (berbayar)

55. Accepted/Promoting

56. The world is listening (SciencePOD)
ResearchPod science podcasts connect the research community to a
global audience of peers and the public, raising visibility and impact.

57. Tracking

58. TERIMA KASIH