Optimasi Determinan Akuntabilitas Reviewer dalam Sistem Publikasi Ilmiah: Pendekatan PLS-SEM
Abstract
Abstrak
Publikasi ilmiah memegang peranan vital sebagai validasi pengetahuan, namun kredibilitasnya rentan terhadap risiko moral hazard dan minimnya studi empiris mengenai akuntabilitas reviewer. Penelitian ini bertujuan menginvestigasi determinan akuntabilitas dengan menguji pengaruh kompetensi, beban kerja, transparansi, dan etika. Menggunakan pendekatan kuantitatif eksplanatori (PLS-SEM), data dikumpulkan dari 50 peneliti muda melalui purposive sampling dan divalidasi dengan kriteria Fornell-Larcker. Hasil penelitian mengungkap temuan dinamis: kompetensi teknis dan transparansi proses tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap persepsi akuntabilitas. Sebaliknya, beban kerja menunjukkan pengaruh positif signifikan yang mengindikasikan bahwa tekanan tugas dipersepsikan sebagai tantangan profesional, sementara etika reviewer terkonfirmasi sebagai faktor dominan. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan institusi untuk memprioritaskan internalisasi kode etik dan merancang manajemen penugasan yang menantang namun terukur guna menjaga integritas publikasi.
Kata Kunci: Akuntabilitas Reviewer, Etika Publikasi, Beban Kerja, Peneliti Muda, PLS-SEM.
References
Alam, S., Babbit, V., Hu, J., Lou, Y., Shen, Z., Wilson, L., Zhou, Z., & Group, F. (2025). Perceptions and recommendations about research integrity and publishing ethics : A survey among Chinese researchers on training , challenges and responsibilities. 131–160. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2025-0031
Barroga, E. (2020). Innovative strategies for peer review. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 35(29), e138. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138
Boerckel, J. D., & Schroter, S. (2021). What do reviewers look for? An analysis of the instructions to reviewers of 1,200 biomedical journals. PLoS ONE, 16(3), e0248472.
Boerckel, J. D., Plotkin, L. I., & Sims, N. A. (2021). Editorial peer reviewers as shepherds, rather than gatekeepers. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 36(7), 1220–1224. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.4319
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2017). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE Council. https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers
Craig, A., Lee, C., Bala, N., & Taswell, C. (2022). 2022 Volume 3 Motivating and Maintaining Ethics , Equity , Effectiveness , Efficiency , and Expertise in Peer review *. 3(1), 1–21.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd Ed. Sage.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Handayani, S., Budi, L., & Kristianto, V. A. (2024). The influence of academic integrity and competency on lecturer performance in higher education. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 820, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-198-2_14
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0166387.
LePine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & LePine, M. A. (2005). A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 764-775.
Pinto, A. C., Capasso, R., Muto, G., Bianchi, E., Guida, F., Rodriguez, R., Rossi, C., & Vecchione, D. (2023). Ethics in scientific publication: spectrum of misconducts. Journal of Radiological Review. https://doi.org/10.23736/s2723-9284.22.00217-1
Resnik, D. B. (2011). The Ethics of Science: An Introduction. Routledge.
Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2018). Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer review. Toxicologic Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318754792
Resnik, D. B., & Elmore, S. A. (2018). Conflict of Interest in Journal Peer review. Toxicologic Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318754792
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
Sholihah, Q. (2019). Pengantar Metodologi Penelitian. UB Press.
Sholihah, Q., & Aji, B. S. (2020). Analysis of the Implementation of Occupational Health and Safety Management System (SMK3) at PT. X Based on PP No. 50 of 2012. The Indonesian Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, 9(1), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.20473/ijosh.v9i1.2020.69-78
Sholihah, Q., & Anward, H. H. (2019). Relationship of Work Position with Musculoskeletal Complaints in Crackers Industrial Workers at Sidoarjo. Journal of Agromedicine and Medical Sciences, 5(3), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.19184/ams.v5i3.9634
Sholihah, Q., Kuncoro, W., & Belladonny, A. (2021). Correlation between Workload and Work Stress on Nurse Performance in Inpatient Room of dr. R. Soedarsono Regional Public Hospital, Pasuruan City. Qanun Medika - Medical Journal Faculty of Medicine Muhammadiyah Surabaya, 5(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.30651/jqm.v5i1.5204
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., ... & Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emerging and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35308/invasi.v4i1.14430
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Jurnal Industri dan Inovasi (INVASI)