ETIKA PENULISAN ILMIAH

Dr.Ir.Junaedi Muhidong, MSc

Staf Program Studi ‘Agricultural Engineering’
Universitas Hasanuddin

Presentasi pada Pelattihan Penulisan Ilmiah di KOPERTIS Wilayah IX

11 Juni 2007
PROLOG
• Science is based on the systematic observation of phenomena with
the aim of formulating hypotheses and general laws to explain
them.
• For science to develop and progress, the clear communication of
the findings and ideas that arise from these observations is
essential. The principal forum for communication in science is the
scientific journal (in printed and electronic form)
• However, scientific journals are not just a network for spreading
information. The findings and ideas that are published must also be
accurate and well-founded.
• Scientific journals contribute to this process by acting as a quality
assurance system. The ‘peer review’ process used to screen
manuscripts is to design to ensure that the articles published are of
a high standard both in content and presentation.
Problems with Writing a Paper
 Using other people's words or data (plagiarism).
 Not reporting contradictory observations you made.
 Putting your name on work you didn't do.
 Not reporting others' related or contradictory work.
 Changing the hypothesis for the paper.
 Gradually changing from "far out possibility" to
"established fact."
 Concluding "cause and effect" when only
"correlation" is demonstrated.
 Writing an abstract with no data.
 Failing to report negative results.
 Publishing the same results many times.
Using other people's words or
data (plagiarism)
 It's almost impossible to read about a problem and
not incorporate into one's own writing some words
or phrases taken from something you've read. The
writer may not even be aware that he has done it.
 That is quite a different matter from knowingly
stealing someone else's words. The infraction is only
slightly less severe if the other person's words are
only paraphrased, rewritten slightly to avoid an
exact duplication.
 Stealing data is a more serious matter. This kind of
theft can never be done unconsciously; the
perpetrator always realizes (or, at least, he should)
that what he is doing is wrong. The consequences of
this act should be the same as the consequences for
making up data.
Not reporting contradictory
observations you made
 There are times when the results of
repetition of an experiment may be
different from the original results because
of chance or because of some critical
change, even a small one, in the
procedures. Sometimes control values may
be different from one experiment to the
next, sometimes experimental values. If
you notice this kind of discrepancy, it is
unethical not to report it in print.
Putting your name on work
you didn't do
 There are clearly strong pressures for a scientist's
name to appear on as many publications as possible.
These have led to an explosion of author lists on
papers and to inclusion in such lists of people who
made no substantial contribution to the work or know
nothing about it. It is not always clear whose name
should be put on a paper. There are certainly people
who have a legitimate claim to authorship, but there
are many who do not.
 Recent fraud cases involving "innocent" co-authors,
who did not know that the misconduct was occurring,
show clearly the problems with including individuals
who had no substantial involvement in the research. If
they were not close enough to the research to know
the fraud was occurring, they should not have been co-
authors!
Not reporting others' related
or contradictory work
 Eugene Garfield (1982) has pointed out that
citing other scientists' work is part of the
reward system of science.
 "After all, citations are the reward system of
scientific publication. To cite someone is to
acknowledge that person's impact on
subsequent work. Citations are the currency
by which we repay the intellectual debt we
owe our predecessors. Furthermore, failing to
cite sources deprives other researchers of the
information contained in those sources, and
may lead to duplication of effort."
Potential Problems With
Gathering Data

 Collecting data without appropriate

controls.
 Omitting controls others have pointed out.
 Using inappropriate sample sizes.
 Selecting what to observe.
 Failing to see events or seeing nonexistent
ones.
 Failing to preserve data for a suitable
length of time.
DATA
 Validitas data sangat esential
 Validitas data tergantung pada validitas dan
akurasi metode yg digunakan
 Peneliti harus mengerti ‘the nature’ data yang
dikumpulkan (disinilah pentingnya seorang
peneliti terlibat langsung pada setiap
proses yang dijalankan selama penelitian)
 Perlu kehati-hatian dalam menangani data
‘outlier’
 Kejanggalan pada data yg berasal dari dua
atau lebih sumber pengukuran harus dicermati
Potential Problems with Data
Processing
 Editing data.
 Making up data.
 Using inappropriate statistical tests
(Experimental Technique).
 Violating the assumptions of the
statistical test.
 Using "canned" computer software
without questioning or examining
results for accuracy.
Experimental Technique
 Salah satu tujuan dari metode penelitian adalah untuk
memfasilitasi bahwa observasi ilmiah yg dilakukan dapat
diverifikasi secara independen untuk meminimumkan
bias yg mungkin terjadi
 Dengan teknik ini, hasil observasi yg diperoleh dapat
direproduksi kembali
 Metode baru sering menimbulkan skepticism terutama
kalau tidak dapat dielaborasi dengan baik (skepticism
merupakan bagian dari sikap kritis dari ilmuan,
dan sifat ini sangat positif untuk pengkayaan ilmu
pengetahuan)
 Metode yg tdk dibangun dgn cermat akan menyulitkan
dalam membedakan antara signal dengan ‘noise’,
mengenali sumber error, mengaburkan permasalahan yg
sedang dikaji, dan bahkan akan mengantarkan ke
kesimpulan yg salah
Error and Negligence in Science

 Ilmuan tidak akan pernah 100% yakin akan kebenaran

yg dihasilkannya. Oleh karena itu semua hasil kajian
harus diperlakukan sebagai ‘susceptible to error’
 Kesalahan dapat terjadi karena berbagai faktor:
 Waktu yg terbatas
 Resources yg terbatas
 Negligence
 Deception (fabrication, falsification, and use
another person words or idea without giving
credit)
 Jika penelitian telah dipublikasikan, maka sebaiknya
koreksi terhadap kesalahan yg dilakukan juga
dipublikasikan pada jurnal yg sama
 Tunjukan bahwa kesalahan yg terjadi adalah ‘an
honest mistake’
Just a reminder

 If scientists cut corners for whatever

reason,
 they are placing their reputation,
 the work of their colleagues,
 and the public’s confidence in science at
risk
CIRI PENELITI
 Reasoning Power (kekuatan penalaran)
 Originality (orijinalitas)
 Memory (perbendaharaan fakta)
 Alertness (tanggap dan sigap)
 Accuracy (kecermatan)
 Application (persistent)
 Cooperation (kemampuan kerjasama)
 Moral attitude (sikap moral)
 Health (kesehatan)
 Zeal (daya kreasi tinggi dan pantang menyerah)