WOW Prompting — Scientific Writing Assistant

📋 Cara pakai (4 langkah)

1️⃣ Pilih jalur sesuai bahan Anda: A = punya catatan penelitian · B = butuh cari literatur juga · C = punya draft/skripsi lama · D = naskah final mau diaudit & disubmit.
2️⃣ Jalankan prompt berurutan dari No. 1 — Copy → paste ke ChatGPT/GPT-5 → centang ✅ jika selesai.
3️⃣ Setelah semua bab jadi, pakai ⭐ Academic Humanizer (No. 8 di Jalur C) per bab, lalu gabungkan jadi manuskrip utuh.
4️⃣ Sebelum submit: jalankan Jalur D — Audit & Submit (auditor → novelty → reviewer simulation → adaptasi jurnal).

Prompt analisis awal (Step 2) — klik untuk lihat

"Analisis data penelitian yang saya lampirkan. Buatlah ringkasan yang mencakup: (1) Masalah utama riset, (2) Metode yang digunakan, (3) Temuan data paling signifikan, dan (4) Bagaimana temuan ini memberikan kontribusi baru dibandingkan literatur yang ada saat ini. Tulis dalam bahasa akademik yang formal."

Jalur A: Draft dari Catatan

Jalankan berurutan dari No. 1. Centang jika sudah dipakai.

1 Ringkas Substansi Argumen Model: GPT 5-Thinking / GRA 2.0

Baca dan analisis secara cermat serta mendalam data catatan penelitian yang dilampirkan. Identifikasi dan ringkas elemen-elemen penting berikut (dalam bahasa Inggris): 
- Judul: Berikan judul yang jelas dan ringkas yang mencerminkan fokus penelitian. 
- Ringkasan Latar Belakang: Uraikan secara singkat konteks dan motivasi penelitian. 
- Permasalahan Penelitian: Soroti masalah utama atau pertanyaan riset yang diangkat. 
- Ringkasan Ulasan Literatur: Ringkas temuan literatur utama yang menjadi dasar studi ini. 
- Hipotesis: Nyatakan hipotesis atau asumsi utama yang diuji dalam penelitian. 
- Data dan Temuan Penting: Identifikasi dan sajikan data utama, hasil, dan temuan signifikan. 
- Tesis/Kesimpulan: Jabarkan kesimpulan utama yang diambil dari penelitian. 
- Kontribusi Ilmiah: Ringkas kontribusi penelitian terhadap bidang keilmuan atau wawasan baru yang dihasilkan. 

Jawablah secara ringkas dengan maksimum 500 kata, yang sesuai untuk digunakan dalam penyusunan draf artikel jurnal ilmiah internasional. 

Ringkasan ini harus membentuk dasar terstruktur dan panduan untuk menulis draft naskah standard jurnal internasional bereputasi. Pastikan keakuratan, kejelasan, dan kepatuhan pada standar akademik. 

[Tempel Keseluruhan Catatan penelitian, atau lampirkan dalam bentuk file]

2 Tulis Pendahuluan (Introduction) Model: GPT 5 Auto / Canvas Mode

Tulis bagian Pendahuluan sebuah naskah jurnal internasional bereputasi berdasarkan pada Catatan Penelitian di bawah dengan spesifikasi berikut: 
- Tulis dalam Bahasa Inggris, 1100 kata, tanpa sub-bab, heading di awal: 1. Introduction). 
- Dalam penulisan Anda, patuhi standar penulisan akademik. 
- Tingkatkan teks ilmiah dengan meningkatkan kejelasan, struktur logis, dan alur argumen, nada formal dan netral. 
- Dalam menulis, gunakan pernyataan literatur sebagai basis, kutip setiap literatur dan pertahankan integritas setiap sitasi. Tulis Heading di bagian awal (1. Introduction). 
- Struktur: 
Paragraf 1 dan 2: Latar belakang studi - berikan konteks umum yang menunjukkan pentingnya studi. Tulis minimal dua paragraf. Sertakan survei literatur terkini. 
Paragraf 3 dan 4: Masalah penelitian utama dan solusi umum. 
Paragraf 5-6: Solusi spesifik dari masalah penelitian dari literatur ilmiah sebelumnya. 
Paragraf 7: Ikhtisar literatur yang erat kaitannya dengan solusi yang diberikan dalam studi ini yang akhirnya mengarah pada kesenjangan penelitian. 
Paragraf 8: Tujuan, pernyataan kebaruan atau justifikasi hipotesis, dan ruang lingkup studi. 

Detail Catatan Penelitian: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Pernyataan Literatur: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna, dipersiapkan secara mandiri)

3 Tulis Metodologi (Methodology) Model: GPT 5 Auto / Canvas Mode

Tulis bagian Methodology berdasarkan Catatan Hasil penelitian di bawah dnean spesifikasi berikut: 
- Tulis dalam 1000-1200 kata; ikuti struktur sub-heading dari Catatan hasil penelitian; Tulis heading di bagian awal: 2. Methodology. Ikuti sistematika sesuai dengan informasi pada catatan penelitian. 
- Gunakan pernyataan literatur sebagai basis, kutip setiap literatur dan pertahankan integritas setiap sitasi. Jika relevan, sitasi juga pernyataan literatur yang diberikan di Pendahuluan. 
- Rujuk pada Gambar dan/atau Tabel jika disediakan, dan tulis keterangan tabel atau gambar (captions) di tempat semestinya. 
- Tulis dalam format paragraf penuh. Hindari membuat list atau penomoran 

Detail Catatan Penelitian: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Daftar gambar dan/atau Tabel: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Statement Literatur: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna dipersiapkan secara mandiri)

4 Tulis Hasil (Results) Model: Canvas Baru

Tulis bagian Hasil sebuah naskah jurnal internasinal bereputasi menurut Detail catatan Penelitian di bawah. 
- Tulis dalam 1500 kata; ikuti struktur sub-heading dari Catatan hasil penelitian. Tulis heading di bagian awal: 3. Results. Ikuti sistematika sesuai dengan informasi pada catatan penelitian. 
- Gunakan Pernyataan literatur sebagai basis, kutip setiap literatur dan pertahankan integritas setiap sitasi. Jika relevan, sitasi juga pernyataan literatur yang diberikan di Pendahuluan dan Metodologi. 
- Rujuk pada Gambar dan/atau Tabel jika disediakan, dan tulis keterangan tabel atau gambar (captions) di tempat semestinya. 
- Tulis dalam format paragraf penuh. Hindari membuat list atau penomoran 

Detail Catatan Penelitian: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Daftar gambar dan/atau Tabel: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Statement Literatur: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna dipersiapkan secara mandiri)

5 Tulis Diskusi (Discussion) Model: Canvas Baru

Tulis bagian Diskusi sebuah naskah jurnal internasinal bereputasi dengan detail berikut. 
- Tulis Bahasa Inggris dalam 1000-1200 kata. 
- Ikuti struktur sub-heading dari Catatan hasil penelitian. Jika tidak ada, buat sub-headings tambahan sesuai keperluan. Tulis heading di bagian awal: 4. Discussion. Ikuti sistematika sesuai dengan informasi pada catatan penelitian. 
- Gunakan statement literatur sebagai basis, kutip setiap literatur dan pertahankan integritas setiap sitasi. Jika relevan, sitasi juga pernyataan literatur yang diberikan di Pendahuluan, Metodologi dan Hasil. 
- Diskusikan dengan komprehensif dan rinci temuan riset sesuai standard publikasi internasional bereputasi. 
- Tulis dalam format paragraf penuh. Hindari membuat list atau penomoran 

Detail Catatan Penelitian: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Statement Literatur: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna dipersiapkan secara mandiri)

6 Finalisasi & Metadata Model: Auto / Canvas Baru

Tulis bagian kesimpulan dalam Bahasa Inggris dengan spesifikasi berikut: 
- Tulis judul di bagian awal: 5. Conclusion 
- Tulis dengan panjang 200-250 kata 
- Rangkum hasil utama dan poin diskusi dari studi. 
- Nyatakan temuan utama dan implikasinya. 
- Diskusikan ringkas bagaimana penelitian ini berkontribusi pada body of knowledge yang ada dan sarankan area penelitian lebih lanjut jika relevan. 
- Pastikan kesimpulan berbeda dari abstrak dengan tidak mengulan pendahuluan dan metodologi. 

Tulis abstrak dengan spesifikasi berikut:
- Tulis dengan panjang 200-250 kata 
- Abstrak harus berdiri sendiri, mengikuti struktur teks utama dan mewakili teks utama. 
- Mulailah dengan pengantar dan tujuan (15% dari abstrak), diikuti dengan metodologi singkat (20%). Sajikan hasil utama dan diskusi (50%), dan akhiri dengan ringkasan temuan dan implikasinya (15%). 
- Pastikan abstrak informatif, ditulis dengan baik, dan menarik perhatian pembaca, menggunakan kata kunci dan istilah yang sama seperti judul and pengantar. Hindari singkatan and referensi. 

Tulis 5-7 kata kunci dengan spesifikasi berikut: 
- Merepresentasikan keseluruhan naskah 
- Kata-kata dipilih dengan pertimbangan SEO yang baik sehingga mudah dicari menggunakan mesin pencari di internet. 

Sarankan 5 alternatif judul yang sesuai untuk artikel ini!

7 Model: GPT-5 Auto (Canvas)

Extract semua data asli khusus dari BAB 1 PENDAHULUAN menjadi format kerangka ringkas dalam Bahasa Inggris! Tulis dalam format poin-poin, setiap pojnt maksimum 30-50 kata, sertakan semua informasi kuatitatif. Mulai dengan menulis Heading (1. Introduction). Susun mengikuti kerangka berikut: 
 - 	 Ringkasan Latar Belakang: Uraikan secara singkat konteks dan motivasi penelitian. 
 - 	 Permasalahan Penelitian: Soroti masalah utama atau pertanyaan riset yang diangkat. 
 - 	 Ringkasan Ulasan Literatur: Ringkas temuan literatur utama yang menjadi dasar studi ini. 
 - 	 Hipotesis: Nyatakan hipotesis atau asumsi utama yang diuji dalam penelitian. 
 - 	 Data dan Temuan Penting: Identifikasi dan sajikan data utama, hasil, dan temuan signifikan. 
 - 	 Tesis/Kesimpulan: Jabarkan kesimpulan utama yang diambil dari penelitian. 
 - 	 Kontribusi Ilmiah: Ringkas kontribusi penelitian terhadap bidang keilmuan atau wawasan baru yang dihasilkan. 
 Extrak dalam Bahasa Inggris setiap pernyataan literatur yang digunakan menulis BAB 1 PENDAHULUAN. Gunakan format berikut:(Nama, Tahun): Pernyataan literatur. Dalam mengekstrak pernyataan, sertakan setiap data kuantitatif. 
 Susun Catatan Penelitian dan Kutipan Literatur secara berurut sesuai contoh terlampir

8 Model: GPT-5 Auto (Canvas)

Extract dalam Bahasa Inggris semua data asli khusus dari BAB 2 Methodology menjadi format kerangka ringkas! Tulis dalam format poin-poin, setiap pojnt maksimum 30-50 kata, sertakan semua informasi kuatitatif. Mulai dengan menulis Heading (2. Methodology). Susun kerangka hingga 2 level heading sehingga penulisan menjadi sistematis. Jika ada, tulis ulang keterangan tabel dan keterangan gambar. 
 Extrak dalam Bahasa Inggris setiap pernyataan literatur yang digunakan menulis BAB 2 Methodology. Gunakan format berikut:(Nama, Tahun): Pernyataan literatur. Dalam mengekstrak pernyataan, sertakan setiap data kuantitatif. 
 Susun Catatan Penelitian dan Kutipan Literatur secara berurut sesuai contoh terlampir

9 Model: GPT-5 Auto (Canvas)

Extract dalam Bahasa Inggris semua data asli khusus dari BAB 3 Results menjadi format kerangka ringkas! Tulis dalam format poin-poin, setiap pojnt maksimum 30-50 kata, sertakan semua informasi kuatitatif. Mulai dengan menulis Heading (3. Results). Susun kerangka hingga 2 level heading sehingga penulisan menjadi sistematis. Jika ada, tulis ulang keterangan tabel dan keterangan gambar. Dalam mengekstrak kerangka, sertakan setiap data kuantitatif jika ada dalam naskah asli. 
 Extrak dalam Bahasa Inggris setiap pernyataan literatur yang digunakan menulis BAB 3. Results. Gunakan format berikut:(Nama, Tahun): Pernyataan literatur. Dalam mengekstrak pernyataan, sertakan setiap data kuantitatif. 
 Susun Catatan Penelitian dan Kutipan Literatur secara berurut sesuai contoh terlampir

10 Model: GPT-5 Auto (Canvas)

Extract dalam Bahasa Inggris semua data asli khusus dari BAB 4 Discussion menjadi format kerangka ringkas! Tulis dalam format poin-poin, setiap pojnt maksimum 30-50 kata, sertakan semua informasi kuatitatif. Mulai dengan menulis Heading (4 Discussion). Susun kerangka hingga 2 level heading sehingga penulisan menjadi sistematis. Jika ada, tulis ulang keterangan tabel dan keterangan gambar. Dalam mengekstrak kerangka, sertakan setiap data kuantitatif jika ada dalam naskah asli. 
 Extrak dalam Bahasa Inggris setiap pernyataan literatur yang digunakan menulis BAB 4 Discussion. Gunakan format berikut:(Nama, Tahun): Pernyataan literatur. Dalam mengekstrak pernyataan, sertakan setiap data kuantitatif jika ada dalam naskah asli. 
 Susun Catatan Penelitian dan Kutipan Literatur secara berurut sesuai contoh terlampir

11 Model: GPT-5 Auto (Canvas)

Extract dalam Bahasa Inggris semua data asli khusus dari BAB 5 Conclusion menjadi format kerangka ringkas! Tulis dalam format poin-poin (5-7 point), setiap point maksimum 20 kata, sertakan semua informasi kuatitatif. Mulai dengan menulis Heading (5. Conclusion).

Jalur B: Draft + Literatur

Jalankan berurutan dari No. 1. Centang jika sudah dipakai.

1 Learn Topic, Trend & Terminologies Model: GPT 5 - Thinking | Write in Chat!!!

Pelajari kumpulan abstrak terlampir mengenai riset dengan fokus pada [JUDUL/TEMA]. Buat Ringkasan (dalam 500 kata, bahasa Inggris) temuan-temuan penting dalam topik ini. Selanjutnya saya akan meminta untuk menulis sebuah artikel jurnal internasional bereputasi di bidang penelitian yang sama. Pelajari topik ini dengan baik sebagai bahan persiapan menulis. Jawab “Siap” jika telah selesai tanpa memberikan respond tambahan.

2 Develop Main Research Argument Model: GPT 5 - Thinking | Write in Chat!!!

Baca dan analisis secara cermat serta mendalam data catatan penelitian yang dilampirkan. Identifikasi dan ringkas elemen-elemen penting berikut (dalam bahasa Inggris): 
- Judul: Berikan judul yang jelas dan ringkas yang mencerminkan fokus penelitian. 
- Ringkasan Latar Belakang: Uraikan secara singkat konteks dan motivasi penelitian. 
- Permasalahan Penelitian: Soroti masalah utama atau pertanyaan riset yang diangkat. 
- Ringkasan Ulasan Literatur: Ringkas temuan literatur utama yang menjadi dasar studi ini. 
- Hipotesis: Nyatakan hipotesis atau asumsi utama yang diuji dalam penelitian. 
- Data dan Temuan Penting: Identifikasi dan sajikan data utama, hasil, dan temuan signifikan. 
- Tesis/Kesimpulan: Jabarkan kesimpulan utama yang diambil dari penelitian. 
- Kontribusi Ilmiah: Ringkas kontribusi penelitian terhadap bidang keilmuan atau wawasan baru yang dihasilkan.

Jawablah secara ringkas dengan maksimum 500 kata dalam bahasa Inggris, yang sesuai untuk digunakan dalam penyusunan draf artikel jurnal ilmiah internasional. Ringkasan ini harus membentuk dasar terstruktur sebagai dasar untuk menulis ulang atau mengadaptasi penelitian menjadi draf yang siap diserahkan ke jurnal internasional bereputasi. Pastikan keakuratan, kejelasan, dan kepatuhan pada standar akademik, karena ringkasan ini akan menjadi panduan dalam pengembangan draf selanjutnya. 

[Tempel Keseluruhan Catatan penelitian]

3 Pencarian Literatur Model: GPT 5 - Instant | Write in New Canvas!

Tulis pertanyaan pencarian literatur yang terarah guna membantu menemukan referensi yang relevan di basis data ilmiah (seperti Scopus, Google Scholar, dll). Pertanyaan ini harus mendukung konten di setiap sub-bagian dan memastikan artikel sesuai dengan standar yang diharapkan dalam publikasi akademik bereputasi. Jumlah pertanyaan yang diperlukan sebagai berikut: Pendahuluan: 6, Metodologi: 2, Hasil: 2 untuk setiap sub-bab (Rujuk jumlah sub-bab pada Keseluruhan Catatan penelitian); Diskusi: 4

4 Tulis Pendahuluan (Introduction) Model: GPT 5 - Auto | New Canvas | GPT 4.5 Writing Style

Tulis bagian Pendahuluan sebuah naskah jurnal internasional bereputasi berdasarkan pada Catatan Penelitian di bawah dengan spesifikasi berikut: 
- Tulis dalam Bahasa Inggris, 1300 kata, tanpa sub-bab, heading di awal: 1. Introduction). 
- Dalam penulisan Anda, patuhi standar penulisan akademik. 
- Tingkatkan teks ilmiah dengan meningkatkan kejelasan, struktur logis, dan alur argumen, nada formal dan netral. 
- Dalam menulis, gunakan pernyataan literatur sebagai basis, kutip setiap literatur dan pertahankan integritas setiap sitasi. Literatur harus mempertahankan semua yang sudah ada di dokumen awal dan semua yang ditambahkan di Pernyataan Literatur. 
- Tulis Heading di bagian awal (1. Introduction). 
- Struktur: 
Paragraf 1 dan 2: Latar belakang studi - berikan konteks umum yang menunjukkan pentingnya studi. Tulis minimal dua paragraf. Sertakan survei literatur terkini. 
Paragraf 3 dan 4: Masalah penelitian utama dan solusi umum. 
Paragraf 5-6: Solusi spesifik dari masalah penelitian dari literatur ilmiah sebelumnya. 
Paragraf 7: Ikhtisar literatur yang erat kaitannya dengan solusi yang diberikan dalam studi ini yang akhirnya mengarah pada kesenjangan penelitian. 
Paragraf 8: Tujuan, pernyataan kebaruan atau justifikasi hipotesis, dan ruang lingkup studi. 

Detail Catatan Penelitian: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Pernyataan Literatur: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna)

5 Tulis Metodologi (Methodology) Model: GPT 5 - Auto | New Canvas | GPT 4.5 Writing Style

Tulis bagian Methodology berdasarkan Catatan Hasil penelitian di bawah dnean spesifikasi berikut: 
- Tulis dalam 1000-1200 kata; ikuti struktur sub-heading dari Catatan hasil penelitian; Tulis heading di bagian awal: 2. Methodology. 
- Gunakan pernyataan literatur sebagai basis, kutip setiap literatur dan pertahankan integritas setiap sitasi. Jika relevan, sitasi juga pernyataan literatur yang diberikan di Pendahuluan. 
- Buat struktur dengan 2-3 level headings tergantung kebutuhan. 
- Rujuk pada Gambar dan/atau Tabel jika disediakan, dan tulis keterangan tabel atau gambar (captions) di tempat semestinya. 
- Tulis dalam format paragraf penuh. Hindari membuat list atau penomoran

Detail Catatan Penelitian: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Daftar gambar dan/atau Tabel: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Statement Literatur: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna)

6 Tulis Hasil (Results) Model: GPT 5 - Auto | New Canvas | GPT 4.5 Writing Style

Tulis bagian Hasil sebuah naskah jurnal internasinal bereputasi menurut Outline dan Detail catatan Penelitian di bawah. 
- Tulis dalam 1500 kata; ikuti struktur sub-heading dari Catatan hasil penelitian. Tulis heading di bagian awal: 3. Results. Pertahankan headings menurut catatan penelitian yang disediakan. 
- Gunakan Pernyataan literatur sebagai basis, kutip setiap literatur dan pertahankan integritas setiap sitasi. Jika relevan, sitasi juga pernyataan literatur yang diberikan di Pendahuluan dan Metodologi. 
- Tulis ulang keseluruhan Tabel jika ada. 
- Rujuk pada Gambar dan/atau Tabel jika disediakan, dan tulis keterangan tabel atau gambar (captions) di tempat semestinya. 
- Tulis dalam format paragraf penuh pada body text. Hindari membuat list atau penomoran 
- Kamu HARUS Sitasi setiap referensi yang ada di dokumen awal dan di pernyataan literatur. 

Detail Catatan Penelitian: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Daftar gambar dan/atau Tabel: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna) 
Statement Literatur: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna)

7 Tulis Diskusi (Discussion) Model: GPT 5 - Auto | New Canvas | GPT 4.5 Writing Style

Tulis bagian Diskusi sebuah naskah jurnal internasinal bereputasi dengan detail berikut. 
- Tulis Bahasa Inggris dalam 1000-1200 kata. 
- Ikuti struktur sub-heading dari Catatan hasil penelitian. Jika tidak ada, buat sub-headings tambahan sesuai keperluan. Tulis heading di bagian awal: 4. Discussion. You can add sub-headings if required. 
- Gunakan statement literatur sebagai basis, kutip setiap literatur dan pertahankan integritas setiap sitasi. Jika relevan, sitasi juga pernyataan literatur yang diberikan di Pendahuluan, Metodologi dan Hasil. 
- Diskusikan dengan komprehensif dan rinci temuan riset sesuai standard publikasi internasional bereputasi. 
- Rujuk pada Gambar atau Tabel dibagian sebelumnya jika diperlukan untuk meningkatkan koherensi antar bab/sub-bab 
- Tulis dalam format paragraf penuh. Hindari membuat list atau penomoran 
- Jangan menyimpulkan atau meringkas di akhir. 

Detail Catatan Penelitian: Gunakan data dan informasi penelitian yang diberikan sebelumnya. Sitasi tabel dan/gambar jika relevan dan diperlukan/ 
Statement Literatur: (akan diberikan oleh pengguna, Hasil Scite.AI)

8 Kesimpulan, Abstrak, Keywords & Judul Model: GPT 5 - Auto | New Canvas | GPT 4.5 Writing Style

Tulis bagian kesimpulan dengan spesifikasi berikut: 
- Tulis dengan panjang 200-250 kata 
- Rangkum hasil utama dan poin diskusi dari studi. 
- Nyatakan temuan utama dan implikasinya. 
- Diskusikan ringkas bagaimana penelitian ini berkontribusi pada body of knowledge yang ada dan sarankan area penelitian lebih lanjut jika relevan. 
- Pastikan kesimpulan berbeda dari abstrak dengan tidak mengulang pendahuluan dan metodologi, langsung ke temuan utama. 
- Kata-kata dipilih dengan pertimbangan SEO yang baik sehingga mudah dicari menggunakan mesin pencari di internet. 
- Tulis heading di bagian awal: 5. Conclusion 

Tulis abstrak dengan spesifikasi berikut. 
- Panjang 200 kata 
- Harus berdiri sendiri, mengikuti struktur teks utama dan mewakili teks utama. 
- Mulailah dengan pengantar dan tujuan (15% dari abstrak), diikuti dengan metodologi singkat (20%). Sajikan hasil utama dan diskusi (50%), dan akhiri dengan ringkasan temuan dan implikasinya (15%). 
- Pastikan abstrak informatif, ditulis dengan baik, dan menarik perhatian pembaca, menggunakan kata kunci dan istilah yang sama seperti judul dan pengantar. Hindari singkatan dan referensi. 
- Kata-kata dipilih dengan pertimbangan SEO yang baik sehingga mudah dicari menggunakan mesin pencari di internet. 

Tulis 5-7 kata kunci dengan spesifikasi berikut: 
- Merepresentasikan keseluruhan naskah 
- Kata-kata dipilih dengan pertimbangan SEO yang baik sehingga mudah dicari menggunakan mesin pencari di internet. 
- Pisahkan dengan semi-kolon. 

Sarankan 5 judul yang sesuai untuk jurnal ilmiah ini!

Jalur C: Revisi Draft Lama

Jalankan berurutan dari No. 1. Centang jika sudah dipakai.

1 Analisis Draft Manuskrip/Skripsi Model: GPT 5 | Analisis Mendalam

Baca dengan seksama, rinci, dan teliti skripsi yang dilampirkan. Tulis judul, latar belakang, permasalahan riset, ulasan literatur, hipotesis, data-data penting yang dihasilkan, tesis/kesimpulan, kontribusi ilmiah. Jawab ringkas dalam maksimum 500 kata dalam bahasa Inggris.

2 Develop an Outline Model: GPT 5 | Jawab dalam Canvas baru!

Berdasarkan draft awal naskah yang diberikan, susun ulang struktur yang optimal sehingga menjadi artikel ilmiah berkualitas tinggi (semua respon dalam Bahasa Inggris, dan panjang maksimum keseluruhan 600 kata). Ikuti format tradisional artikel penelitian: Judul Pendahuluan (Introduction), Bahan dan Metode (Methodology), Hasil (Results), Diskusi (Discussion), dan Kesimpulan (Conclusion). Berikan ringkasan konten untuk setiap bab dan sub-bab yang ada. Untuk setiap bagian utama, uraikan menjadi sub-bagian yang relevan. Ringkas tujuan dan konten ideal dari setiap sub-bagian secara singkat.

3 Tulis Ulang Pendahuluan (Introduction) Model: GPT 5 | Jawab dalam Canvas baru!

Berdasarkan pemahaman sebelumnya, tulis Kembali dalam bahasa Inggris Bab 1 Pendahuluan dari dokumen terlampir. Tulis dalam 1200 kata, jangan buat sub-bab. Dalam menulis, patuhi standar akademik: jelas, struktur logis, argumentatif, induktif, nada formal, akademik dan netral. Dalam menulis, pertahankan setiap sitasi dan jaga integritas setiap sitasi. Di bagian awal tulis judul bab (1. Introduction). 
Bagian pendahuluan tersusun sebagai berikut: 
Paragraf 1 dan 2: Latar belakang studi - berikan konteks umum yang menunjukkan pentingnya studi. Tulis minimal dua paragraf. Sertakan survei literatur terkini. 
Paragraf 3 dan 4: Masalah penelitian utama dan solusi umum. 
Paragraf 5-6: Solusi spesifik dari masalah penelitian dari literatur ilmiah sebelumnya. 
Paragraf 7: Ikhtisar literatur yang erat kaitannya dengan solusi yang diberikan dalam studi ini yang akhirnya mengarah pada kesenjangan penelitian. 
Paragraf 8: Tujuan, pernyataan kebaruan atau justifikasi hipotesis, dan ruang lingkup studi.

4 Tulis Ulang Metodologi (Methodology) Model: GPT 5 | Jawab dalam Canvas baru!

Berdasarkan pemahaman sebelumnya, tulis Kembali dalam bahasa Inggris Bab Metodologi Penelitian dari artikel yang dilampirkan (dalam 1200 kata). Susun ulang sub-bab agar lebih sistematis dan logis. Dalam menulis, patuhi standar akademik: jelas, struktur logis, argumentatif, induktif, nada formal, akademik dan netral. Di bagian awal tulis judul bab (2. Methodology), dan buat penomoran sub-headings secara sistematis. Dalam menulis pertahankan setiap sitasi dan jaga integritas setiap sitasi.

5 Tulis Ulang Hasil (Results) Model: GPT 5 | Jawab dalam Canvas baru!

Berdasarkan pemahaman sebelumnya, tulis Kembali dalam bahasa Inggris Bab Hasil dalam 1500 kata. Jika diperlukan, susun ulang sub-bab agar lebih sistematis dan logis. Dalam menulis, patuhi standar akademik: jelas, struktur logis, argumentative, induktif, nada formal, akademik dan netral. Di bagian awal tulis judul bab (3. Results), dan buat penomoran sub-headings secara sistematis. Dalam menulis pertahankan setiap sitasi dan jaga integritas setiap sitasi.

6 Tulis Ulang Diskusi (Discussion) Model: GPT 5 | Jawab dalam Canvas baru!

Berdasarkan pemahaman sebelumnya, tulis Kembali dalam bahasa Inggris Bab 4. Pembahasan di bawah dalam 1000 kata. Jika diperlukan, susun ulang sub-bab agar lebih sistematis dan logis. Dalam menulis, patuhi standar akademik: jelas, struktur logis, argumentative, induktif, nada formal, akademik dan netral. Di bagian awal tulis judul bab (4. Discussion), dan buat penomoran sub-headings secara sistematis. Dalam menulis pertahankan setiap sitasi dan jaga integritas setiap sitasi.

7 Kesimpulan, Abstrak & Metadata Model: GPT 5 | Jawab dalam Canvas baru!

Tulis bagian kesimpulan dalam Bahasa Inggris (satu paragraf). Rangkum hasil utama dan poin diskusi dari studi. Nyatakan temuan utama dan implikasinya. Diskusikan bagaimana penelitian ini berkontribusi pada kumpulan pengetahuan yang ada dan sarankan area penelitian lebih lanjut jika relevan. Pastikan kesimpulan berbeda dari abstrak dan memberikan pernyataan yang jelas mengenai signifikansi dan kontribusi studi ini. Di bagian awal tulis judul bab (5. Conclusion), 

Tulis abstrak singkat yang berdiri sendiri, mengikuti struktur teks utama. Mulailah dengan pengantar dan tujuan (15% dari abstrak), diikuti dengan metodologi singkat (20%). Sajikan hasil utama dan diskusi (50%), dan akhiri dengan ringkasan temuan dan implikasinya (15%). Pastikan abstrak informatif, ditulis dengan baik, dan menarik perhatian pembaca, menggunakan kata kunci dan istilah yang sama seperti judul dan pengantar. Hindari singkatan dan referensi. Di bagian awal tulis judul (Abstract). 

Tulis 5-7 Kata Kunci 

Sarankan 5 alternatif judul yang sesuai.

8 Academic Humanizer v1.0 ⭐ Model: GPT 5 | Jawab dalam Canvas baru!

# Academic Humanizer — Operational Master Rulebook

**Version:** 1.0
**Purpose:** Humanize and academically refine the manuscript without altering its scientific content, evidence, citations, or theoretical positioning.

## 1. Core Objective

Revise the manuscript so that it reads as natural, precise, researcher-driven scholarly English suitable for an international peer-reviewed journal.

The goal is not to imitate "human mistakes," replace words mechanically, or optimize for an AI detector. The goal is to improve:

**researcher voice + argument flow + evidence specificity + conceptual originality + methodological transparency + natural scholarly rhythm.**

Scientific meaning always takes priority over style.

## 2. Locked Content

The following content must not be changed unless the author explicitly authorizes a substantive revision.

### Article title

**Reconfiguring Digital Business Work with AI Agents: Delegation, Coordination Tensions, and Control**

### Empirical corpus

- 1,212 user-generated messages
- 50 unique senders
- 20 May–9 September 2026
- 131 candidate temporal clusters
- 18 retained analytical episodes
- 579 retained messages
- 37 pseudonymized participants
- 11 core episodes
- 7 supporting, boundary, or negative episodes
- Core episodes: EP-01, EP-20, EP-25, EP-30, EP-31, EP-41, EP-55, EP-80, EP-90, EP-110, EP-120

Do not alter participant identifiers, episode identifiers, dates, counts, work contexts, or evidence trajectories.

### Theoretical positioning

- **Primary theory:** Sociotechnical Systems Theory
- **Supporting perspective:** Distributed Cognition

Do not elevate Distributed Cognition to an equal or primary theory. Do not add Dynamic Capabilities, Task–Technology Fit, Agency Theory, or another theory unless the author explicitly requests a theoretical redesign.

### Core process

Preserve the logic:

**digital/business task → delegation configuration → specialization or handoff → coordination tension → situated control response → continuation, simplification, or reconfiguration**

The wording may be integrated naturally into prose, but the mechanism and direction must not be changed.

### Contribution boundary

Do not claim that the following are novel by themselves:

- task delegation;
- orchestrator agents;
- specialist agents;
- multi-agent systems;
- agent-to-agent handoffs;
- verification;
- guardrails;
- access restrictions;
- human oversight;
- coordination problems.

The defensible contribution is the naturalistic, process-oriented explanation of **how users configure, control, simplify, and reconfigure agentic digital work when coordination tensions arise in everyday digital business practice**.

### Figures

Preserve:

- **Figure 1. Corpus Construction and Episode Selection Process**
- **Figure 2. Process of Situated Sociotechnical Reconfiguration in Agentic Digital Work**

Narrative references to the figures must remain synchronized with the visual content.

## 3. Non-Negotiable Research Integrity

Never invent or alter:

- empirical data;
- numbers;
- dates;
- participant or episode identifiers;
- quotations;
- findings;
- codes;
- research questions;
- methodological procedures;
- citations;
- references;
- theoretical constructs;
- causal relationships;
- ethics approval or permission.

Do not convert qualitative interpretation into causal proof.

Prefer proportionate language such as:

- suggests;
- indicates;
- points to;
- reveals a pattern;
- is consistent with;
- can be interpreted as;
- provides evidence of.

Use stronger causal wording only if the research design actually supports it.

## 4. Section-Specific Editing Intensity

### Introduction — Strong editing allowed

Improve:

- literature synthesis;
- problem framing;
- gap clarity;
- paragraph transitions;
- researcher-driven argument;
- sentence rhythm.

Preferred logic:

**phenomenon → delegation problem → coordination/control problem → prior solutions → theoretical lens → naturalistic evidence gap → study positioning and contribution**

Do not turn the Introduction into an author-by-author catalogue.

### Methodology — Conservative editing only

Prioritize accuracy and reproducibility over stylistic variation.

Protect:

- corpus values;
- screening logic;
- inclusion/exclusion criteria;
- unit of analysis;
- coding sequence;
- negative-case analysis;
- trustworthiness;
- ethics wording;
- AI-use disclosure.

Do not invent reflexivity, triangulation, intercoder agreement, consent, ethics approval, or methodological events.

If an important detail is genuinely missing, mark:

**[MISSING METHOD DETAIL: specify the issue]**

### Results — Moderate editing

Use the pattern:

**finding → episode evidence → interpretation → relation to the empirical process**

Keep Results primarily empirical. Do not add literature simply to make the section appear more academic.

Preserve negative and boundary cases, especially where they challenge the assumption that more agents or more autonomy are always better.

Do not convert close paraphrases into invented direct quotations.

### Discussion — Strong editing allowed

Use:

**finding → comparison with literature → explanation/mechanism → theoretical implication → practical boundary**

The Discussion must not simply repeat the Results.

Clarify what is:

1. already established in prior research;
2. supported by the present data;
3. newly elaborated by this study;
4. still uncertain or bounded.

Keep theoretical claims proportionate. Prefer:

- empirically elaborates;
- refines;
- contextualizes;
- adds process-level detail;
- shows how.

Avoid "develops a new theory" or "proves."

### Abstract and Conclusion — Light editing

Prioritize consistency with the final manuscript.

Do not introduce:

- new evidence;
- new findings;
- new concepts;
- new references;
- stronger claims than the Discussion supports.

## 5. Researcher Voice

Researcher voice should come from visible analytical judgment, not from inserting "we" into every paragraph.

Preferred formulations include:

- The analysis identified...
- Across the episodes, a recurring pattern emerged...
- Closer comparison showed...
- The findings suggest...
- The present study interprets this pattern as...
- This distinction matters because...
- The negative cases qualify this interpretation...

Use first person only when appropriate to the journal style and authorship configuration.

## 6. Natural Scholarly English

Use varied sentence length and syntax where it improves reasoning.

Avoid repetitive patterns such as:

- "The results show that..."
- "Furthermore..."
- "Moreover..."
- "Additionally..."
- "It is important to note..."
- "This study aims to..."

Do not mechanically remove them; replace them only when a more precise logical transition is available.

Avoid:

- slang;
- rhetorical questions;
- deliberate grammar errors;
- decorative vocabulary;
- forced synonym replacement;
- excessive em dashes;
- excessive parenthetical comments;
- artificially short sentences.

Naturalness should arise from evidence, argument, and rhythm.

## 7. Conceptual Paraphrasing

When wording sounds too close to a source, do not perform synonym substitution.

Use:

**understand the source idea → identify its role in the manuscript → reorganize the reasoning → rewrite from the perspective of the present study → preserve the citation**

Never remove a citation to make wording appear more original.

If source dependence remains too high, mark:

**[SIMILARITY RISK]**

## 8. Evidence and Negative Cases

Major empirical claims should remain traceable to episode evidence.

Preserve negative cases such as:

- difficulty remembering which specialist handled which function;
- loop risk;
- production-access concerns;
- uncertainty over the best workflow;
- underused multi-agent complexity;
- shifts back toward simpler orchestrator or session-based arrangements.

These cases are analytically valuable because they qualify the dominant pattern.

## 9. Cross-Section Consistency

After editing all sections, verify:

**Introduction → Methodology → Results → Discussion → Conclusion → Abstract**

Check that:

- the research problem in the Introduction is actually addressed by the Method and Results;
- Results do not contain unsupported theoretical claims;
- Discussion claims can be traced to Results;
- Conclusion does not strengthen claims;
- Abstract matches the final findings;
- all corpus numbers remain identical;
- terminology is stable;
- Figure 1 and Figure 2 match the surrounding narrative;
- every in-text citation has a reference entry;
- every reference is used where intended.

## 10. Controlled Terminology

Use consistently:

- agentic artificial intelligence / agentic AI
- agentic digital work
- digital business work
- delegation configuration
- orchestrator agent
- specialist agent
- coordination tension
- situated control response
- situated sociotechnical reconfiguration
- Sociotechnical Systems Theory
- Distributed Cognition
- netnography

Do not replace established terms merely for lexical variety.

## 11. Ethical and Privacy Guardrails

The source is a private WhatsApp community.

Do not assert any of the following unless verified by documentation:

- formal ethics approval;
- ethics exemption;
- researcher membership/access status;
- administrator permission;
- participant consent.

Maintain:

- pseudonymization;
- removal/masking of direct identifiers;
- restricted raw-data treatment;
- close paraphrase rather than searchable verbatim quotation.

The final decision on whether the community/platform name remains identifiable must follow the actual permission and ethics basis.

## 12. Generative AI Disclosure

Do not describe AI as an autonomous analyst or source of evidence.

Preserve human responsibility for:

- corpus construction;
- episode inclusion/exclusion;
- coding revision;
- interpretation;
- negative-case analysis;
- theoretical positioning;
- final claims.

Before submission, align the disclosure with the selected journal or publisher policy and ensure that it accurately reflects actual data handling.

## 13. Required Internal Editing Sequence

Apply these steps in order.

### Step 1 — Integrity check
Lock data, evidence, citations, theory, figures, and findings.

### Step 2 — Evidence check
Identify overclaims, unsupported statements, and gaps.

### Step 3 — Section-level humanization
Use the intensity rules above.

### Step 4 — Conceptual originality check
Rewrite source-dependent phrasing conceptually, not lexically.

### Step 5 — Argument check
Ensure each paragraph has a clear analytical function.

### Step 6 — Cross-section audit
Verify RQ/problem → Method → Results → Discussion → Conclusion → Abstract.

### Step 7 — Final researcher-voice pass
Edit only remaining formulaic or mechanical passages. Do not rewrite already strong prose merely for variation.

## 14. Output Rules

For a revised section, return:

### A. Revised text
Clean manuscript prose only.

### B. Important issues
Report only substantive problems under the relevant headings:

- Evidence
- Citation
- Method
- Similarity Risk
- Overclaim
- Consistency

### C. Editorial summary
Briefly state what changed in argument flow, researcher voice, evidence grounding, methodological transparency, and terminology.

Do not predict an AI-detection score.
Do not guarantee a Turnitin similarity score.
Do not intentionally make the writing less grammatical or less academic.

## 15. Final Quality Test

Before accepting a revision, ask:

1. Does this sentence sound like a researcher reasoning from evidence rather than a template generating prose?
2. Is every empirical claim still supported by the source material?
3. Has any citation, number, episode, or theoretical role changed?
4. Is the novelty still bounded and defensible?
5. Does the paragraph advance the argument rather than merely sound different?
6. Would a reviewer understand why the finding matters?
7. Is the writing natural without becoming informal?

If the answer to any integrity question is no, revert the stylistic edit rather than altering the science.

---

# TEXT TO REVIEW

Use the uploaded manuscript or the text below:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT OR SECTION HERE]

Jalur D: Audit & Siap Submit

Jalankan berurutan setelah naskah rapi & di-humanize. Centang jika sudah dipakai.

1 Scopus Manuscript Auditor Audit menyeluruh — jalankan paling awal

You are a **Senior Scopus Manuscript Auditor and Research Integrity Reviewer**.

Audit the manuscript I provide as if you were evaluating it before submission to a reputable Scopus-indexed journal.

Your task is NOT to rewrite the entire manuscript immediately.

First, diagnose its scientific, methodological, theoretical, and argumentative weaknesses.

## AUDIT THE FOLLOWING

### 1. Overall Research Storyline

Check whether the manuscript has a coherent flow:

**Phenomenon → Research Problem → Literature Gap → Research Question → Method → Findings → Discussion → Contribution → Conclusion**

Identify:

* logical breaks;
* unsupported jumps;
* repeated ideas;
* missing links between sections;
* sections that do not serve the central research question.

### 2. Title

Check whether the title accurately represents:

* phenomenon;
* context;
* theoretical perspective if relevant;
* main analytical focus.

Flag titles that:

* overclaim;
* are too broad;
* are too descriptive;
* promise variables or mechanisms not actually examined.

### 3. Abstract

Check alignment between:

**Problem → Gap → Method → Findings → Contribution**

Identify:

* findings mentioned only in the abstract;
* claims stronger than the Results;
* missing methodological information;
* vague contribution statements.

### 4. Introduction

Assess whether the Introduction establishes:

* concrete phenomenon;
* academic problem;
* current knowledge;
* unresolved issue;
* research gap;
* positioning of the present study;
* contribution;
* explicit research question.

Differentiate the gap as:

* empirical;
* theoretical;
* methodological;
* contextual.

Flag artificial or unsupported research gaps.

### 5. Literature Review

Check whether it:

* synthesizes rather than lists studies;
* presents debates and competing explanations;
* supports the research gap;
* establishes the theoretical foundation;
* avoids irrelevant literature.

Identify literature sections that are descriptive rather than analytical.

### 6. Research Questions

Evaluate whether each RQ is:

* specific;
* answerable using the available data;
* consistent with the method;
* consistent with the Results.

Identify RQs that are too broad or not answered.

### 7. Method

Audit:

* research design;
* research context;
* sampling;
* inclusion/exclusion criteria;
* data collection;
* corpus/sample size;
* unit of analysis;
* analytical procedure;
* coding/theme development;
* trustworthiness;
* reflexivity;
* ethics;
* evidence traceability.

Do NOT invent missing methodological information.

Use:

[MISSING METHOD DETAIL]

when necessary.

### 8. Results

Check whether:

* findings actually answer the RQ;
* findings are analytical rather than descriptive;
* each major claim has evidence;
* evidence and interpretation are distinguishable;
* quotations genuinely support the stated interpretation;
* themes overlap excessively;
* negative cases are considered where relevant.

Use:

[CHECK EVIDENCE]

for unsupported claims.

### 9. Discussion

Check whether the Discussion:

* interprets rather than repeats Results;
* engages previous literature;
* explains mechanisms;
* identifies convergence and divergence;
* develops a defensible contribution;
* avoids introducing new findings.

Flag:

[OVERCLAIM]

when interpretation exceeds evidence.

### 10. Contribution

Assess separately:

* empirical contribution;
* theoretical contribution;
* methodological contribution;
* practical contribution.

Do not accept generic statements such as:

“This study contributes to the literature.”

Explain whether a genuine contribution exists.

### 11. Conclusion

Check whether the Conclusion:

* answers the research problem;
* synthesizes the contribution;
* remains within the evidence;
* acknowledges appropriate boundaries;
* avoids introducing new findings.

### 12. Cross-Section Consistency

Audit alignment across:

**Title → Abstract → Introduction → RQ → Method → Results → Discussion → Conclusion**

Identify:

[CONSISTENCY ISSUE]

whenever sections contradict or drift from one another.

## OUTPUT

### A. OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Provide a score from 1–10 for:

* Research storyline
* Research gap
* Methodological rigor
* Evidence quality
* Analytical depth
* Theoretical contribution
* Discussion quality
* Publication readiness

The scores are diagnostic, not predictions of acceptance.

### B. MAJOR ISSUES

List only problems that could materially affect publication.

For each issue provide:

**Problem → Why it matters → Recommended revision**

### C. MINOR ISSUES

List secondary improvements.

### D. SECTION-BY-SECTION AUDIT

Audit:

* Title
* Abstract
* Introduction
* Literature Review
* Method
* Results
* Discussion
* Conclusion

### E. PRIORITY REVISION PLAN

Classify recommendations as:

1. MUST FIX
2. SHOULD FIX
3. OPTIONAL

Do not rewrite the manuscript unless I explicitly request revision after the audit.

MANUSCRIPT:

[UPLOAD OR PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

2 Novelty & Contribution Strengthener Perkuat klaim kebaruan & kontribusi

You are a **Senior Academic Editor specializing in research novelty and theoretical contribution for Scopus-indexed journals**.

Analyze the manuscript and strengthen how its novelty and contribution are articulated WITHOUT inventing novelty, evidence, literature, or theoretical claims.

## CORE QUESTIONS

Determine:

1. What does the literature already know?
2. What remains insufficiently understood?
3. What does this study empirically reveal?
4. What does this study explain that previous studies did not?
5. What changes in our understanding because of this study?

## DISTINGUISH FOUR CONTRIBUTIONS

### A. Empirical Contribution

What new empirical pattern, phenomenon, context, relationship, mechanism, or process does the study reveal?

### B. Theoretical Contribution

Does the study:

* extend a theory;
* refine a concept;
* reveal a mechanism;
* identify a boundary condition;
* connect theoretical constructs;
* challenge an assumption;
* contextualize theory?

Do not exaggerate theoretical contribution.

### C. Methodological Contribution

Does the study provide a meaningful methodological contribution?

If not, do not force one.

### D. Practical Contribution

Identify practical implications that follow directly from findings.

## NOVELTY TEST

Evaluate novelty using:

**Existing Knowledge → Unresolved Problem → New Evidence → New Explanation → Contribution**

Flag weak novelty claims as:

[WEAK NOVELTY]

Flag unsupported novelty claims as:

[UNSUPPORTED NOVELTY]

## OUTPUT

### A. CURRENT NOVELTY

State what the current manuscript actually contributes.

### B. NOVELTY WEAKNESSES

Identify where novelty is vague, exaggerated, or unsupported.

### C. REFINED CONTRIBUTION

Provide improved wording for:

* research gap;
* study positioning;
* empirical contribution;
* theoretical contribution;
* practical contribution.

### D. ONE-SENTENCE CONTRIBUTION

Write one strong sentence answering:

**What does this study add that we did not know before?**

### E. CONTRIBUTION PARAGRAPH

Write a publication-ready paragraph suitable for the Introduction or Discussion.

Preserve all citations and scientific meaning.

MANUSCRIPT:

[UPLOAD OR PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

3 Theory–Findings Alignment Auditor Cek keselarasan teori vs temuan

You are a **Senior Theory Reviewer for management, digital business, information systems, and organizational research**.

Audit whether the theory used in this manuscript genuinely explains the empirical findings.

Do NOT force data into theory.

Do NOT invent theoretical mechanisms.

## ANALYZE

### 1. Theory Selection

Determine whether the chosen theory is appropriate for:

* research question;
* unit of analysis;
* phenomenon;
* data;
* level of analysis.

### 2. Construct Definition

Check whether theoretical constructs are:

* accurately defined;
* consistently used;
* distinguishable from one another.

### 3. Theory in Introduction/Literature Review

Determine whether theory establishes analytical expectations rather than merely providing definitions.

### 4. Theory in Results

Check whether Results remain grounded in data rather than forcing theoretical categories onto participants.

### 5. Theory in Discussion

For every major finding ask:

**Finding → What mechanism does theory explain?**

Identify cases where theory is merely mentioned but not analytically used.

### 6. Empirical Evidence

For each theoretical claim ask:

* What evidence supports it?
* Does evidence actually represent the construct?
* Is interpretation stronger than the data?

### 7. Extension of Theory

Determine whether findings:

* confirm;
* refine;
* extend;
* contextualize;
* challenge;
* reveal boundary conditions.

Do not label confirmation alone as strong theoretical contribution.

## OUTPUT

### A. THEORY FIT

Score 1–10 and explain briefly.

### B. CONSTRUCT MAP

Use:

**Construct → Empirical evidence → Interpretation → Contribution**

### C. MISALIGNMENTS

Flag:

[THEORY–DATA MISALIGNMENT]

when theoretical interpretation is not sufficiently supported.

### D. UNDERUSED THEORY

Identify theoretical concepts that are introduced but not used.

### E. OVERUSED THEORY

Identify places where theory is imposed on data.

### F. RECOMMENDED DISCUSSION STRUCTURE

Provide a better theory–finding structure.

Do not rewrite evidence.

MANUSCRIPT:

[UPLOAD OR PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

4 Evidence & Claim Auditor Cek klaim vs bukti empiris

You are a **Research Evidence Auditor**.

Audit every important empirical and theoretical claim in the manuscript.

The objective is to ensure:

**Claim → Evidence → Interpretation**

## RULES

Do NOT:

* invent evidence;
* create participant quotations;
* add statistics;
* add citations;
* modify quotations.

## AUDIT RESULTS

For every major finding identify:

1. The claim.
2. Evidence supporting it.
3. Strength of evidence.
4. Interpretation.
5. Whether interpretation exceeds the evidence.

Classify:

**STRONG**
Evidence directly supports the claim.

**ADEQUATE**
Evidence supports the claim but additional evidence would improve it.

**WEAK**
Evidence is indirect or insufficient.

**UNSUPPORTED**
No clear evidence is provided.

Use:

[CHECK EVIDENCE]

where necessary.

## CHECK FOR NEGATIVE CASES

Determine whether the manuscript appropriately handles:

* contradictory evidence;
* minority patterns;
* failed cases;
* exceptions.

Do not invent negative cases.

## DISCUSSION AUDIT

Check whether every empirical claim in Discussion can be traced to Results.

Flag claims appearing only in Discussion as:

[NEW CLAIM IN DISCUSSION]

## CONCLUSION AUDIT

Check whether each conclusion is supported by Results and Discussion.

Flag:

[UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSION]

## OUTPUT

### A. CLAIM–EVIDENCE MATRIX

Use:

| Claim | Evidence | Assessment | Problem | Recommendation |

### B. MAJOR EVIDENCE GAPS

Prioritize the most important problems.

### C. OVERINTERPRETATION

Identify interpretations that exceed evidence.

### D. TRACEABILITY

Evaluate:

**Data → Finding → Discussion → Conclusion**

### E. REVISION RECOMMENDATIONS

Explain how to strengthen claims WITHOUT fabricating evidence.

MANUSCRIPT:

[UPLOAD OR PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

5 Citation & Reference Integrity Check Cek sitasi & daftar referensi

You are an **Academic Citation and Reference Integrity Auditor**.

Audit the manuscript's citations and reference list.

Do not invent missing references.

Do not assume that a source supports a claim unless the manuscript or source material allows that conclusion.

## CHECK

### 1. In-text Citations

Identify:

* citations appearing in text but missing from References;
* inconsistent author names;
* inconsistent years;
* duplicate citations;
* inconsistent citation formatting.

### 2. Reference List

Identify:

* references never cited in the manuscript;
* duplicate references;
* incomplete bibliographic information;
* inconsistent formatting.

### 3. Citation Placement

Check whether citations appear clearly connected to the claims they support.

Flag ambiguous citation placement.

### 4. Citation–Claim Relationship

Where possible, evaluate whether a citation appears appropriate for the claim.

If verification requires access to the original source, mark:

[VERIFY SOURCE]

Do not guess.

### 5. Citation Density

Identify:

* unsupported claims;
* excessive citation stacking;
* paragraphs relying excessively on one source;
* sections with insufficient scholarly support.

### 6. Self-Citation

Identify excessive or unnecessary self-citation if present.

## OUTPUT

### A. MISSING REFERENCES

Citations in text but absent from reference list.

### B. UNUSED REFERENCES

References listed but never cited.

### C. FORMAT INCONSISTENCIES

List problems.

### D. CITATION–CLAIM ISSUES

Use:

[CHECK CITATION]

or:

[VERIFY SOURCE]

### E. RECOMMENDED CORRECTIONS

Do not fabricate bibliographic information.

MANUSCRIPT:

[UPLOAD OR PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

6 Scopus Reviewer Simulation Simulasi reviewer jurnal Scopus

You are acting as an **independent anonymous reviewer for a reputable Scopus-indexed international journal**.

Review the manuscript critically.

Do NOT behave as a supportive writing assistant.

Evaluate it as a demanding but fair academic reviewer.

## REVIEW CRITERIA

Evaluate:

1. Importance of the research problem
2. Originality
3. Literature positioning
4. Theoretical foundation
5. Research design
6. Sampling/data quality
7. Analytical rigor
8. Evidence–claim alignment
9. Results
10. Discussion
11. Theoretical contribution
12. Practical implications
13. Limitations
14. Writing quality
15. Overall publication value

## REVIEWER TEST

Ask:

* Why should this article be published?
* What is genuinely new?
* Is the research gap real?
* Does the method adequately answer the RQ?
* Are findings sufficiently analytical?
* Is the contribution stronger than the evidence permits?
* Could alternative explanations account for the findings?
* Is the theoretical contribution meaningful?
* Are limitations appropriately acknowledged?

## OUTPUT

### Reviewer Report

#### 1. Summary of the Manuscript

Briefly summarize what the study does.

#### 2. Overall Evaluation

Provide a critical assessment.

#### 3. Major Comments

Provide numbered major issues.

For each:

**Issue → Why it matters → What revision is required**

#### 4. Minor Comments

List smaller problems.

#### 5. Questions for the Authors

Ask difficult questions a reviewer is likely to raise.

#### 6. Contribution Assessment

Rate:

* Novelty: /10
* Theoretical contribution: /10
* Methodological rigor: /10
* Evidence quality: /10
* Discussion: /10
* Writing: /10

#### 7. Recommendation

Select one:

* Accept
* Minor Revision
* Major Revision
* Reject

Explain the recommendation.

Do not soften criticism merely to be encouraging.

MANUSCRIPT:

[UPLOAD OR PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

7 Reviewer-Proof Revision Revisi respons komentar reviewer

You are a **Senior Academic Revision Editor responding to rigorous peer-review concerns**.

Using the reviewer report and manuscript I provide, revise weaknesses without changing data, evidence, statistics, quotations, or research design.

## PROCESS

For every reviewer concern:

1. Identify the exact problem.
2. Determine whether it can be resolved using existing evidence.
3. Strengthen the manuscript where justified.
4. Do not fabricate evidence to satisfy the reviewer.
5. If a concern cannot be resolved using existing data, recommend transparent acknowledgement.

## PRIORITIES

Strengthen:

* research gap;
* theoretical positioning;
* methodological transparency;
* analytical depth;
* evidence–claim alignment;
* theoretical contribution;
* limitations;
* discussion.

## DO NOT

* invent analyses;
* fabricate data;
* invent references;
* overclaim novelty;
* pretend a limitation has been solved when it has not.

## OUTPUT

### A. REVISION MATRIX

| Reviewer Comment | Assessment | Revision | Location |

### B. REVISED TEXT

Provide publication-ready replacements for sections requiring revision.

### C. UNRESOLVED ISSUES

Identify reviewer concerns that cannot legitimately be fixed using existing evidence.

### D. AUTHOR RESPONSE

Draft a professional response such as:

“Thank you for this important observation. We have revised...”

Be specific about what changed.

MANUSCRIPT:

[UPLOAD MANUSCRIPT]

REVIEWER COMMENTS:

[PASTE REVIEWER REPORT]

8 Target Journal Adaptation Adaptasi ke target jurnal

You are a **Senior Academic Editor preparing a manuscript for submission to a specific Scopus-indexed journal**.

Adapt the manuscript to the target journal WITHOUT changing the scientific findings.

I will provide:

* manuscript;
* target journal;
* Aims & Scope;
* author guidelines;
* word limits;
* abstract requirements;
* reference style;
* selected recent articles from the journal when available.

## ANALYZE JOURNAL FIT

Evaluate:

### 1. Scope Fit

Does the manuscript genuinely fit the journal?

Score:

**Strong Fit / Moderate Fit / Weak Fit**

Explain why.

### 2. Audience Fit

Identify what the journal's readers are likely to care about most.

### 3. Contribution Fit

Determine which contribution should be emphasized:

* theoretical;
* empirical;
* methodological;
* managerial;
* policy;
* digital business.

### 4. Structural Fit

Check:

* article structure;
* word count;
* abstract;
* keywords;
* heading structure;
* references;
* tables;
* figures;
* appendices.

### 5. Style Fit

Where recent journal articles are provided, identify common patterns in:

* title style;
* abstract structure;
* theoretical framing;
* Discussion;
* contribution language.

Do NOT imitate sentences from published articles.

Use patterns only at the structural level.

## ADAPT THE MANUSCRIPT

Adjust:

* title;
* abstract;
* keywords;
* Introduction positioning;
* contribution emphasis;
* Discussion framing;
* Conclusion;
* section organization;

only where necessary.

Preserve:

* data;
* findings;
* evidence;
* statistics;
* citations;
* theoretical integrity.

## OUTPUT

### A. JOURNAL FIT ASSESSMENT

Score 1–10.

### B. FIT PROBLEMS

Explain major mismatches.

### C. REQUIRED ADAPTATIONS

Classify:

* Essential
* Recommended
* Optional

### D. REVISED TITLE

Provide 3 alternatives.

### E. REVISED ABSTRACT

Adapt to journal requirements.

### F. REVISED KEYWORDS

Provide appropriate keywords.

### G. SECTION-SPECIFIC REVISIONS

Provide only sections that need adaptation.

### H. PRE-SUBMISSION CHECK

Confirm compliance with supplied journal requirements.

If information is missing, state:

[NEED JOURNAL GUIDELINE]

Do not invent journal requirements.

TARGET JOURNAL:

[NAME]

JOURNAL INFORMATION:

[PASTE AIMS & SCOPE / GUIDELINES OR PROVIDE FILE]

MANUSCRIPT:

[UPLOAD OR PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

Jalur E: Scopus Q1/Q2 Manuscript Optimization

Business, Management & Digital Business — 15 tahap BERURUTAN. Jangan langsung Humanizer (No. 13). Simpan versi naskah & hasil audit setiap tahap.

★ Global Rules — Scientific Integrity Lock Wajib! Tempel di awal SETIAP sesi ChatGPT sebelum prompt 1-15

Gunakan aturan berikut pada SEMUA tahap.

You are acting as a senior academic editor and reviewer specializing in Business, Management, Digital Business, Digital Transformation, Information Systems, Marketing, Entrepreneurship, AI in Business, and related interdisciplinary management research.

The manuscript is intended for a reputable Scopus-indexed international journal, preferably Q1 or Q2.

NON-NEGOTIABLE RESEARCH INTEGRITY RULES:

Do not invent, modify, estimate, or fabricate:
* empirical data;
* participant numbers;
* sample characteristics;
* quotations;
* statistics;
* coefficients;
* p-values;
* themes;
* codes;
* findings;
* research procedures;
* dates;
* references;
* authors;
* journal names;
* DOI numbers;
* theoretical claims unsupported by the manuscript or verified literature.

Preserve:
* research questions;
* research design;
* actual empirical evidence;
* theoretical constructs;
* variable relationships;
* methodological procedures actually conducted;
* direction and strength of findings.

Never strengthen evidence merely to make the paper appear more publishable.

Do not convert:
correlation → causation;
interpretation → proof;
reported practice → objectively verified outcome;
context-specific finding → universal claim.

When necessary, explicitly mark:
[CHECK EVIDENCE]
[CHECK CITATION]
[OVERCLAIM]
[MISSING METHOD DETAIL]
[THEORETICAL GAP]
[CONSISTENCY ISSUE]
[REVIEWER RISK]

Do not solve missing information by assumption.

1 Scientific Integrity Lock & Manuscript Map Tahap awal — peta konten & kunci integritas naskah

I will provide a complete English manuscript intended for a Scopus-indexed Business, Management, or Digital Business journal.

Before editing anything, build a SCIENTIFIC CONTENT LOCK.

Identify and classify the manuscript content into:

A. LOCKED EMPIRICAL CONTENT
* data;
* statistics;
* quotations;
* sample;
* dates;
* empirical findings;
* observed relationships.

B. LOCKED METHODOLOGICAL CONTENT
* research design;
* data collection;
* analytical procedures actually conducted;
* sampling;
* unit of analysis.

C. LOCKED THEORETICAL CONTENT
* theories;
* constructs;
* conceptual relationships;
* research questions or hypotheses.

D. EDITABLE CONTENT
* argument structure;
* academic English;
* paragraph organization;
* theoretical positioning;
* discussion structure;
* explanation;
* redundancy;
* transitions.

E. CONTENT REQUIRING AUTHOR VERIFICATION.

Then create a MANUSCRIPT MAP showing:

Research problem
→ Literature gap
→ Research question
→ Theory
→ Method
→ Main findings
→ Proposed mechanism
→ Theoretical contribution
→ Practical/managerial contribution.

Do NOT rewrite the manuscript yet.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

2 Q1/Q2 Deep Manuscript Diagnostic Audit 17 dimensi + 5 risiko penolakan teratas

Act as a demanding reviewer for a reputable Q1/Q2 Business or Management journal.

Audit the manuscript without rewriting it.

Evaluate:

1. significance of the research problem;
2. clarity of research gap;
3. theoretical positioning;
4. research-question alignment;
5. methodological credibility;
6. adequacy of empirical evidence;
7. analytical depth;
8. findings quality;
9. Discussion quality;
10. theoretical contribution;
11. managerial contribution;
12. boundary conditions;
13. limitations;
14. ethics and research transparency;
15. consistency across sections;
16. international relevance;
17. likelihood that reviewers perceive the paper as descriptive rather than explanatory.

For each problem provide:

ISSUE
SEVERITY: Critical / Major / Moderate / Minor
LOCATION
WHY A Q1/Q2 REVIEWER MAY OBJECT
WHAT MUST BE FIXED
WHETHER NEW DATA ARE REQUIRED.

Finish with:

TOP 5 REJECTION RISKS

and

TOP 5 HIGH-IMPACT REVISIONS.

Do NOT rewrite the manuscript.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

3 Novelty, Theory & Contribution Stress Test Uji ketahanan klaim novelty — jangan hanya konteks baru

Analyze the manuscript specifically from the perspective of theoretical contribution in Business and Management research.

Do not assume that studying:
* a new country;
* a new platform;
* AI;
* SMEs;
* GenAI;
* Agentic AI;
* TikTok;
* digital transformation;

is sufficient novelty.

Determine:

1. What is already known?
2. What remains theoretically unresolved?
3. What does this study empirically reveal?
4. What mechanism or process does it uncover?
5. Does it challenge, extend, refine, contextualize, integrate, or specify boundary conditions of existing theory?
6. What would remain unknown if this study did not exist?

Separate:

PHENOMENON NOVELTY
CONTEXTUAL NOVELTY
EMPIRICAL NOVELTY
PROCESS / MECHANISM NOVELTY
THEORETICAL NOVELTY
METHODOLOGICAL NOVELTY
PRACTICAL NOVELTY.

Then formulate:

A. one defensible research-gap statement;
B. one primary theoretical contribution;
C. up to two secondary contributions;
D. one concise novelty statement suitable for the Introduction;
E. one stronger contribution statement suitable for the Discussion.

Do not exaggerate novelty.

Explicitly flag novelty claims already well established in prior literature as:

[NOT SUFFICIENTLY NOVEL]

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

4 Theory & Literature Positioning Optimizer Pastikan teori benar-benar bekerja, bukan sekadar disebut

Audit whether the literature and theoretical framework perform genuine explanatory work.

For every major theoretical construct, answer:

1. Why is this theory needed?
2. What phenomenon does it explain?
3. What would be unexplained without it?
4. Is the theory used throughout the analysis or merely mentioned?
5. Does the Discussion return to the theory?
6. Are too many theories being used?

Favor THEORETICAL ECONOMY.

Avoid adding theories unless genuinely required.

Examine whether the literature review progresses through:

what is known
→ what remains contested or incomplete
→ theoretical problem
→ empirical opportunity
→ research question.

Identify literature that is:

foundational;
recent and directly relevant;
peripheral;
redundant;
decorative.

Then propose a tighter theoretical positioning.

Do not invent references.

Use [CHECK CITATION] where additional literature verification is needed.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

5 Methodological Credibility Audit Audit metodologi — kualitatif & kuantitatif + pertanyaan Reviewer 2

Act as a methodological reviewer.

Assess whether another competent researcher could understand exactly:

what was studied;
who or what produced the data;
how cases/data were selected;
the unit of analysis;
how data were collected;
how the analysis proceeded;
how interpretations were validated;
how alternative explanations were considered.

Audit:

research design;
research context;
sampling;
data source;
unit of analysis;
inclusion/exclusion;
data collection;
analysis;
coding;
software/AI assistance;
researcher judgment;
robustness;
triangulation;
negative/deviant cases;
trustworthiness or validity;
ethical procedures;
data management;
limitations.

For qualitative/netnographic studies additionally inspect:

immersion;
contextual interpretation;
episode construction;
field notes;
memoing;
saturation;
audit trail;
participant/community privacy.

For quantitative studies inspect:

construct validity;
measurement;
sample adequacy;
model specification;
assumptions;
robustness;
common-method risks where applicable.

Do NOT invent missing methodological detail.

Mark it:
[MISSING METHOD DETAIL: ...]

Finish with the five methodological questions most likely to be asked by Reviewer 2.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

6 Results / Findings Evidence Audit Klasifikasi kekuatan klaim: SUPPORTED s/d OVERCLAIM

Audit every major finding.

Use this structure:

FINDING
→ EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
→ PATTERN
→ INTERPRETATION
→ CLAIM STRENGTH.

Classify important claims as:

SUPPORTED
SUPPORTED WITH CAUTION
PARTIALLY SUPPORTED
OVERCLAIM
MISSING EVIDENCE
DUPLICATIVE.

Check whether Results:

answer the RQs;
contain enough evidence;
distinguish evidence from interpretation;
avoid theory-heavy discussion prematurely;
avoid repeating the Method;
avoid presenting data without analytical meaning.

For qualitative studies determine whether themes are merely descriptive labels or whether they reveal:

process;
mechanism;
sequence;
tension;
boundary condition;
transition;
causal logic cautiously interpreted.

Identify negative or contrasting evidence that strengthens interpretation.

Do not alter empirical data.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

7 Q1/Q2 Discussion & Mechanism Builder Bangun rantai mekanisme penjelas di Discussion

Now focus exclusively on the Discussion.

For every major finding build this analytical chain:

FINDING
↓
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
↓
WHY DOES IT OCCUR?
↓
WHAT MECHANISM EXPLAINS IT?
↓
HOW DOES IT RELATE TO PRIOR LITERATURE?
↓
WHERE DOES IT EXTEND / REFINE / QUALIFY THEORY?
↓
UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS MAY THE EXPLANATION CHANGE?
↓
WHAT IS THE THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION?

The Discussion must NOT simply repeat Results.

Distinguish clearly:

empirical finding;
interpretation;
comparison with literature;
mechanism;
theoretical implication;
managerial implication.

Prioritize mechanism-based explanation.

Where relevant, identify:

boundary conditions;
counterintuitive findings;
tensions;
negative cases;
process stages;
feedback loops;
trade-offs.

Rewrite the Discussion only if the existing evidence supports the revision.

Do not introduce unsupported evidence or references.

Use cautious epistemic language where appropriate.

OUTPUT:

1. Discussion diagnosis.
2. Improved Discussion.
3. Explicit theoretical contributions.
4. Managerial implications.
5. Remaining reviewer vulnerabilities.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

8 Whole-Paper Storyline & Consistency Audit Selaraskan Title → Conclusion sebagai satu argumen

Audit the entire manuscript as one argument.

Check alignment across:

TITLE
↓
ABSTRACT
↓
RESEARCH PROBLEM
↓
LITERATURE GAP
↓
RQ / HYPOTHESIS
↓
THEORY
↓
METHOD
↓
RESULTS
↓
DISCUSSION
↓
CONTRIBUTION
↓
CONCLUSION.

Identify:

contradictions;
terminology drift;
different versions of the novelty claim;
RQ not fully answered;
findings absent from Abstract;
contributions introduced only in Conclusion;
claims broader than the sample;
theoretical concepts appearing too late;
duplicated arguments.

Then produce a one-paragraph CORE STORYLINE:

"We know X, but do not adequately understand Y. Using Z evidence and method, this study finds A/B/C. These findings reveal mechanism M, which extends/refines theory T by..."

Use this storyline as the conceptual spine of the article.

Then recommend only the revisions necessary to make every section support this same storyline.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

9 Claim, Citation & Reference Integrity Audit Forensic citation audit — cocokkan klaim ↔ referensi

Perform a forensic citation audit.

Check:

A. Every in-text citation appears in the reference list.
B. Every reference-list entry is cited in the manuscript.
C. Author-year consistency.
D. Duplicate references.
E. Claims requiring citations but lacking them.
F. Citations that do not clearly support the surrounding claim.
G. Excessive reliance on one source.
H. Outdated literature where recent literature is necessary.
I. Citation clusters that appear decorative rather than analytically necessary.
J. Reference details that require verification.

DO NOT invent missing bibliographic information.

Use:

[CHECK CITATION]
[REFERENCE NOT CITED]
[CITATION NOT IN REFERENCES]
[CLAIM NEEDS SOURCE]
[POSSIBLE MISMATCH].

Also identify which references perform these roles:

FOUNDATIONAL THEORY
CURRENT FRONTIER
METHOD
CONTEXT
DIRECTLY COMPETING STUDY.

Finish with a reference-cleanup action list.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT + REFERENCES]

10 Hostile Reviewer Simulation Simulasi 3 reviewer garang + Reviewer Risk Register

Simulate three independent reviewers.

REVIEWER 1:
Senior theory scholar in Business/Management.

REVIEWER 2:
Methodology specialist.

REVIEWER 3:
Editor/reviewer focused on contribution, relevance, and journal fit.

Their objective is NOT to praise the manuscript.

Their objective is to identify credible reasons for:

desk rejection;
major revision;
rejection after peer review.

For each reviewer provide:

MAJOR CONCERNS
MINOR CONCERNS
MOST DIFFICULT QUESTION FOR THE AUTHORS
WHAT EVIDENCE WOULD SATISFY THE REVIEWER
WHICH PROBLEMS CAN BE FIXED BY WRITING
WHICH PROBLEMS REQUIRE NEW ANALYSIS OR DATA.

Then create a:

REVIEWER RISK REGISTER

with columns:

Issue | Reviewer | Severity | Fixability | Required Action.

Finish with:

"THE FIVE ISSUES MOST LIKELY TO DETERMINE PUBLICATION OUTCOME."

Do not rewrite yet.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

11 Scientific Master Revision Revisi master — integritas di atas segalanya + change log

Using the manuscript and the completed audits, produce the strongest scientifically defensible version of the manuscript.

Priority order:

1. research integrity;
2. evidence accuracy;
3. theoretical contribution;
4. methodological transparency;
5. analytical depth;
6. storyline coherence;
7. international relevance;
8. managerial relevance;
9. clarity;
10. concision.

Never improve apparent publishability by exaggerating evidence.

Preserve locked empirical content.

Resolve every fixable:

Critical issue;
Major issue;
consistency problem;
overclaim;
redundancy;
weak theoretical transition.

Do NOT silently invent solutions to missing data.

Leave explicit markers where author input remains required.

After revision provide:

A. REVISED MANUSCRIPT
B. CHANGE LOG
C. UNRESOLVED AUTHOR CHECKS
D. REMAINING REVIEWER RISKS.

At the end declare:

SCIENTIFIC CONTENT LOCK

only if no further substantive revision is needed without new evidence.

INPUT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

[PASTE IMPORTANT AUDIT RESULTS]

12 Academic English, Researcher Voice & Humanizer ⭐ Hanya setelah konten terkunci — poles bahasa tanpa mengubah sains

The manuscript has completed substantive scientific revision (Prompt 01-11).

Treat the scientific content as LOCKED.

Your role is now a senior academic language editor for a Scopus-indexed Business/Management journal.

## 1. LOCKED CONTENT — DO NOT CHANGE

data; statistics; participant numbers; quotations; findings; themes and codes; research questions; methodological procedures actually conducted; references; claim strength; theoretical positioning.

Do not introduce new evidence, new concepts, or new references.

## 2. SECTION-SPECIFIC EDITING INTENSITY

Introduction — STRONG editing allowed:
improve literature synthesis, problem framing, gap clarity, transitions, sentence rhythm.
Do not turn it into an author-by-author catalogue.

Methodology — CONSERVATIVE editing only:
prioritize accuracy and reproducibility. Protect corpus values, procedures, ethics wording, AI-use disclosure.
If an important detail is missing, mark [MISSING METHOD DETAIL: ...] — do not invent it.

Results — MODERATE editing:
keep the pattern finding → evidence → interpretation. Keep Results primarily empirical; do not add literature to look more academic. Preserve negative and boundary cases.

Discussion — STRONG editing allowed:
use the pattern finding → comparison with literature → mechanism → theoretical implication → practical boundary. The Discussion must not repeat the Results.

Abstract and Conclusion — LIGHT editing:
keep consistent with the final manuscript; no stronger claims than the Discussion supports.

## 3. RESEARCHER VOICE

Voice comes from visible analytical judgment, not from inserting "we" everywhere. Preferred formulations:

- The analysis identified...
- Across the cases, a recurring pattern emerged...
- Closer comparison showed...
- The findings suggest...
- This distinction matters because...
- The negative cases qualify this interpretation...

Use first person only if the journal style allows it.

## 4. NATURAL SCHOLARLY ENGLISH

Vary sentence length and syntax where it improves reasoning.

Avoid formulaic AI patterns such as "It is important to note...", "It is worth mentioning...", "Moreover...", "Furthermore...", "This study contributes significantly..." — replace them only when a more precise logical transition is available.

Avoid: slang; rhetorical questions; deliberate grammar errors; decorative vocabulary; forced synonym replacement; excessive em dashes; artificially short sentences.

## 5. CONCEPTUAL PARAPHRASING (SIMILARITY CONTROL)

When wording is too close to a source, do NOT do synonym substitution. Instead:

understand the source idea → identify its role in the manuscript → reorganize the reasoning → rewrite from the perspective of the present study → preserve the citation.

Never remove a citation to appear more original. If source dependence remains high, mark [SIMILARITY RISK].

## 6. OUTPUT RULES

A. FULL POLISHED MANUSCRIPT — clean manuscript prose only.
B. A brief list of substantive issues under: Evidence / Citation / Method / Similarity Risk / Overclaim / Consistency.
C. A short editorial summary (argument flow, voice, terminology).

Do not make new scientific revisions.
Do not predict an AI-detection score.
Do not guarantee a Turnitin similarity score.

## 7. FINAL SELF-CHECK (before returning output)

1. Does every sentence read like a researcher reasoning from evidence, not a template?
2. Is every empirical claim still supported?
3. Has any number, citation, or theoretical role changed? (must be NO)
4. Does the paragraph advance the argument rather than merely sound different?
5. Is the writing natural without becoming informal?

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE SCIENTIFICALLY LOCKED MANUSCRIPT]

13 Target Journal Adaptation Adaptasi naskah ke jurnal target + analisis fit

Target journal:

[JOURNAL NAME]

Journal URL / Author Guidelines:

[LINK]

Article type:

[ARTICLE TYPE]

Adapt the scientifically and linguistically finalized manuscript specifically to this journal.

First examine:

aims and scope;
recently published related papers;
article type;
word limit;
abstract format;
keyword requirements;
section structure;
reference style;
tables;
figures;
supplementary material;
ethics statement;
funding;
conflict of interest;
data availability;
AI-use disclosure if applicable;
double-blind requirements.

Distinguish:

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
EDITORIAL PREFERENCES
OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENTS.

Do NOT distort the manuscript merely to imitate papers published by the journal.

Determine whether the manuscript clearly fits the journal's intellectual conversation.

Provide:

1. Journal-fit analysis.
2. Required manuscript adjustments.
3. Revised title if justified.
4. Revised abstract if required.
5. Revised keywords.
6. Required formatting changes.
7. Missing declarations.
8. Submission risks.

Then produce the journal-adapted manuscript.

14 Final Pre-Submission Gate Gerbang akhir — READY atau NOT READY for submission

Perform a final pre-submission audit.

Do NOT rewrite extensively.

Check:

title;
author anonymity;
abstract;
keywords;
RQ;
numbers;
sample size;
statistics;
terminology;
tables;
figures;
table references;
figure references;
captions;
citations;
references;
DOIs where verified;
ethics;
funding;
conflict of interest;
author contribution;
data availability;
AI disclosure;
supplementary files;
word count;
journal formatting;
author guideline compliance.

Also check that no editing stage accidentally changed empirical meaning.

For every issue assign:

PASS
MINOR FIX
FIX BEFORE SUBMISSION
SUBMISSION BLOCKER.

End with one final status only:

READY FOR SUBMISSION

or

NOT READY FOR SUBMISSION.

If NOT READY, list the exact blocking items.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE FINAL MANUSCRIPT]

JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS:

[PASTE / PROVIDE GUIDELINES]

15 Submission Package Susun paket submit: Cover Letter, CRediT, declarations

The manuscript has passed the final submission gate.

Prepare the submission package for:

[JOURNAL NAME]

Generate only documents actually required by the journal.

Potential items:

* Cover Letter;
* Highlights;
* Author Contributions / CRediT;
* Funding Statement;
* Conflict of Interest Declaration;
* Data Availability Statement;
* Ethics Statement;
* AI-use Disclosure;
* Suggested Reviewers;
* Response to mandatory submission questions.

The Cover Letter must briefly communicate:

1. research problem;
2. why it matters;
3. central finding;
4. theoretical contribution;
5. journal fit;
6. confirmation that the manuscript is original and not simultaneously submitted elsewhere, only if the author confirms this is true.

Do not exaggerate novelty.

Do not claim journal fit merely because the journal is Scopus indexed.

INPUT:

[FINAL MANUSCRIPT]

[JOURNAL INFORMATION]

Jalur F: Sinta 2 Journal Submission

Jurnal nasional terakreditasi SINTA 2 — 10 tahap BERURUTAN. Simpan versi naskah & hasil audit setiap tahap. Jangan ubah data asli.

★ Global Rules — Research Integrity (Sinta 2) Wajib! Tempel di awal SETIAP sesi ChatGPT sebelum prompt 1-10

Gunakan aturan berikut pada seluruh tahapan.

You are acting as a senior academic editor, journal reviewer, and research-integrity reviewer experienced in Indonesian accredited journals, particularly SINTA 2 journals in Business, Management, Digital Business, Marketing, Entrepreneurship, Information Systems, and related fields.

Maintain strict research integrity.

DO NOT invent or modify:

* empirical data;
* sample size;
* participant characteristics;
* statistical results;
* coefficients;
* p-values;
* interview quotations;
* observational evidence;
* themes;
* codes;
* research procedures;
* references;
* authors;
* years;
* DOI numbers.

Do not strengthen claims beyond the evidence.

Do not transform:

correlation into causality;
interpretation into proof;
reported perception into objective outcome;
context-specific findings into universal conclusions.

If information is missing, mark:

[CHECK EVIDENCE]
[CHECK CITATION]
[MISSING METHOD DETAIL]
[OVERCLAIM]
[CONSISTENCY ISSUE]
[AUTHOR CHECK REQUIRED]

Never solve missing information by fabrication.

1 Manuscript Integrity Lock & Initial Mapping Peta naskah & kunci konten — jangan revisi dulu

Read the complete manuscript carefully.

Do NOT rewrite it yet.

Identify:

1. Research problem.
2. Research gap.
3. Research objective.
4. Research question or hypothesis.
5. Main theory/concepts.
6. Research method.
7. Main findings.
8. Main contribution.
9. Practical implications.
10. Main limitations.

Then identify content that must remain LOCKED:

* data;
* statistics;
* quotations;
* sample;
* methods actually conducted;
* research questions;
* findings;
* references.

Identify content that may safely be improved:

* wording;
* argument structure;
* section organization;
* literature positioning;
* Discussion;
* transitions;
* academic language;
* redundancy.

Finally create this research storyline:

PROBLEM
→ GAP
→ OBJECTIVE/RQ
→ METHOD
→ FINDINGS
→ INTERPRETATION
→ CONTRIBUTION.

Do not change the manuscript yet.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

2 Sinta 2 Deep Manuscript Audit Audit menyeluruh Title → References (A-I) + 5 prioritas revisi

Act as a strict reviewer for a reputable SINTA 2 journal.

Audit the entire manuscript.

Evaluate:

A. TITLE
* specific;
* academically appropriate;
* consistent with the study;
* not overstated.

B. ABSTRACT
* problem;
* objective;
* method;
* findings;
* contribution;
* keywords.

C. INTRODUCTION
* research problem;
* significance;
* literature positioning;
* research gap;
* novelty;
* objective/RQ.

D. LITERATURE/THEORY
* relevance;
* theoretical consistency;
* recent literature;
* conceptual clarity.

E. METHOD
* design;
* sampling;
* data;
* instruments;
* analysis;
* validity/trustworthiness;
* ethics.

F. RESULTS
* answers the RQ;
* evidence quality;
* tables/figures;
* unnecessary duplication.

G. DISCUSSION
* interpretation;
* relationship to previous studies;
* theoretical meaning;
* explanation of why findings occurred.

H. CONCLUSION
* answers the research objective;
* contribution;
* implications;
* limitations.

I. REFERENCES
* relevance;
* recency;
* consistency;
* missing citations.

For every issue provide:

ISSUE
SEVERITY: Critical / Major / Moderate / Minor
LOCATION
WHY IT MATTERS
RECOMMENDED FIX.

End with:

TOP 5 PRIORITY REVISIONS BEFORE SINTA 2 SUBMISSION.

Do not rewrite the manuscript yet.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

3 Research Gap, Novelty & Contribution Optimizer Kebaruan defensible — lokasi/AI/UMKM/TikTok bukan otomatis novelty

Analyze whether the manuscript has a clear and defensible novelty.

Do NOT consider these automatically sufficient novelty:

* research conducted in Indonesia;
* new city or province;
* different respondent group;
* use of AI;
* digital business;
* SMEs/UMKM;
* TikTok;
* e-commerce;
* social media.

Determine:

1. What previous studies already know.
2. What is still unclear.
3. What specific problem this study addresses.
4. What this study adds.
5. Why that addition matters.

Classify novelty into:

CONTEXTUAL NOVELTY
EMPIRICAL NOVELTY
THEORETICAL NOVELTY
METHODOLOGICAL NOVELTY
PROCESS/MECHANISM NOVELTY
PRACTICAL NOVELTY.

Then formulate:

A. one clear research gap;
B. one primary novelty;
C. one primary academic contribution;
D. one practical/managerial contribution;
E. a concise Introduction-ready novelty statement.

Avoid exaggerated claims such as:

"this is the first study"

unless verified.

Prefer formulations such as:

"This study extends..."
"This study provides evidence that..."
"This study clarifies..."
"This study reveals how..."
"This study identifies a mechanism through which..."

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

4 Introduction & Literature Optimization Alur Pendahuluan logis + sintesis literatur (bukan daftar studi)

Optimize the Introduction and literature positioning for a strong SINTA 2 article.

The Introduction should progress logically:

CONTEXT / PHENOMENON
↓
IMPORTANT PROBLEM
↓
WHAT EXISTING STUDIES HAVE EXPLAINED
↓
WHAT REMAINS UNCLEAR
↓
RESEARCH GAP
↓
WHY THIS STUDY IS NEEDED
↓
OBJECTIVE / RQ
↓
EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION.

Check whether the Introduction:

* is too long;
* contains textbook-style definitions;
* has excessive background;
* uses too many generic statements;
* contains irrelevant statistics;
* lacks recent literature;
* introduces novelty too late.

Improve the literature synthesis.

Do not produce a study-by-study list such as:

"Author A found X. Author B found Y. Author C found Z."

Prefer synthesis:

"Previous studies generally identify X, but evidence remains mixed regarding Y, particularly under condition Z."

Do not invent citations.

Use:

[CHECK CITATION]

when additional literature is necessary.

OUTPUT:

1. Diagnosis.
2. Revised Introduction.
3. Research gap statement.
4. Objective/RQ.
5. Contribution statement.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

5 Method & Research Integrity Audit Audit metode — kualitatif & kuantitatif, tanpa mengarang detail

Review the Method section as a journal reviewer.

Determine whether the Method clearly explains:

WHAT was studied;
WHERE;
WHO/WHAT produced the data;
HOW the sample/data were selected;
HOW the data were collected;
HOW the data were analyzed;
HOW quality/validity was ensured.

Check:

* research design;
* population/sample;
* sampling technique;
* inclusion criteria;
* instruments;
* operationalization;
* data collection;
* analytical technique;
* software;
* reliability/validity;
* qualitative trustworthiness;
* triangulation;
* ethics;
* limitations.

For qualitative studies also examine:

* coding;
* theme development;
* saturation;
* researcher interpretation;
* negative cases;
* audit trail.

For quantitative studies also examine:

* measurement validity;
* reliability;
* assumptions;
* statistical appropriateness;
* model specification.

Do NOT invent missing methodological information.

Mark:

[MISSING METHOD DETAIL]

whenever author confirmation is required.

OUTPUT:

1. Methodological weaknesses.
2. Recommended corrections.
3. Revised Method only where evidence supports revision.
4. Remaining author checks.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

6 Results & Discussion Optimization Pisahkan bukti vs interpretasi; pembahasan ber-mekanisme

Review Results and Discussion separately.

FIRST: RESULTS

Check whether each result:

* answers the RQ;
* is supported by data;
* is clearly presented;
* avoids unnecessary repetition of tables;
* separates evidence from interpretation.

Use:

CLAIM
→ EVIDENCE
→ RESULT.

Classify important findings:

SUPPORTED
PARTIALLY SUPPORTED
OVERCLAIM
CHECK EVIDENCE.

SECOND: DISCUSSION

For every important finding develop:

FINDING
↓
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
↓
WHY MAY IT HAVE OCCURRED?
↓
HOW DOES IT COMPARE WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES?
↓
WHAT DOES IT ADD?
↓
WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATION?

Avoid Discussion that merely states:

"This finding is consistent with Author X."

Go further:

"This finding is consistent with X but extends the literature by showing..."

Where justified, identify:

* mechanism;
* process;
* contextual condition;
* contradiction;
* boundary condition.

OUTPUT:

1. Results audit.
2. Revised Results if necessary.
3. Discussion audit.
4. Improved Discussion.
5. Explicit contribution statements.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

7 Full Manuscript Consistency & Storyline Audit Konsistensi Judul → Kesimpulan + CORE STORYLINE

Audit consistency across the whole manuscript.

Check alignment:

TITLE
↓
ABSTRACT
↓
INTRODUCTION
↓
RESEARCH GAP
↓
OBJECTIVE / RQ
↓
THEORY
↓
METHOD
↓
RESULTS
↓
DISCUSSION
↓
CONCLUSION.

Identify:

* terminology inconsistency;
* changes in variable names;
* conflicting sample numbers;
* inconsistent research objectives;
* claims in Abstract not supported by Results;
* findings not discussed;
* contribution appearing only in Conclusion;
* repeated arguments;
* conclusions broader than the data.

Then produce one CORE STORYLINE:

"Existing research explains X, but Y remains insufficiently understood. This study investigates Y using method Z. The results reveal A, B, and C, indicating that M. These findings contribute by..."

Use this as the manuscript's conceptual backbone.

Recommend corrections required to align every section to this storyline.

MANUSCRIPT:

[PASTE MANUSCRIPT]

8 Citation & Reference Forensic Audit Audit sitasi forensik + keseimbangan literatur nasional-internasional

Perform a complete citation-reference audit.

Check:

1. Every in-text citation exists in References.
2. Every reference is cited in the article.
3. Author spelling.
4. Publication year.
5. Duplicate references.
6. Missing DOI where already available.
7. Citation style consistency.
8. Claims requiring references.
9. References that appear irrelevant.
10. Over-reliance on old literature.
11. Need for recent literature.

Classify references:

FOUNDATIONAL
RECENT CORE LITERATURE
METHOD
CONTEXT
SUPPORTING ONLY
POSSIBLY REMOVE.

DO NOT invent:

* DOI;
* authors;
* article titles;
* journal names.

Mark uncertain entries:

[VERIFY REFERENCE]
[VERIFY DOI]
[CHECK CITATION].

Also assess reference balance.

Prefer a combination of:

* foundational sources;
* recent international journal literature;
* relevant Indonesian literature;
* methodological sources.

OUTPUT:

A. Citation problems.
B. Reference-list problems.
C. Missing-support claims.
D. Recommended reference cleanup.

MANUSCRIPT + REFERENCES:

[PASTE]

9 Sinta 2 Reviewer Simulation & Scientific Revision Simulasi 3 reviewer + revisi semua masalah yang bisa diperbaiki

Simulate three reviewers.

REVIEWER 1:
Topic/theory reviewer.

REVIEWER 2:
Method reviewer.

REVIEWER 3:
Journal editor/general reviewer.

Ask each reviewer:

"What are the strongest reasons this manuscript might receive major revision or rejection?"

For each concern provide:

CONCERN
SEVERITY
MANUSCRIPT LOCATION
WHY IT MATTERS
REQUIRED FIX
CAN IT BE FIXED WITHOUT NEW DATA?

Then identify:

TOP 5 REJECTION RISKS.

After completing the reviewer simulation, revise all FIXABLE scientific problems.

Priority:

1. integrity;
2. clarity of research problem;
3. gap;
4. method;
5. evidence;
6. Discussion;
7. contribution;
8. consistency;
9. concise academic writing.

Do not invent evidence.

Do not hide unresolved problems.

OUTPUT:

A. REVIEWER REPORT
B. REVISED MANUSCRIPT
C. UNRESOLVED AUTHOR CHECKS
D. REMAINING RISKS.

If the substantive scientific content is sufficiently stable, label:

SCIENTIFIC CONTENT LOCK.

10 Academic Humanizer + Target Journal + Pre-Submission ⭐ 3 langkah final: poles bahasa → adaptasi jurnal → gerbang submit

The manuscript has completed substantive scientific revision.

Treat its empirical and scientific meaning as LOCKED.

STEP 1 — LANGUAGE POLISH

LOCKED (do not change): data; statistics; findings; themes and codes; method; theory; citations; references; claim strength.

SECTION-SPECIFIC EDITING INTENSITY:
Introduction — strong editing (synthesis, framing, transitions).
Method — conservative editing only; protect procedures, instruments, ethics wording; mark [MISSING METHOD DETAIL: ...] instead of inventing.
Results — moderate editing; keep finding → evidence → interpretation; preserve negative cases.
Discussion — strong editing (comparison with literature → mechanism → implication); must not repeat Results.
Abstract & Conclusion — light editing; no stronger claims than the Discussion supports.

RESEARCHER VOICE — voice comes from visible analytical judgment, not from inserting "we" everywhere. Preferred formulations:
- The analysis identified...
- Across the cases, a recurring pattern emerged...
- The findings suggest...
- This distinction matters because...

Do NOT optimize for AI-detector scores.
Do NOT deliberately introduce errors.

Avoid repetitive AI-style expressions such as:

"Furthermore,"
"Moreover,"
"It is important to note that..."
"This study highlights the importance of..."

when unnecessary. Naturalness arises from evidence, argument, and rhythm — not from mechanical variation.

CONCEPTUAL PARAPHRASING: when wording is too close to a source, reorganize the reasoning and rewrite from the perspective of the present study; preserve the citation. Never remove a citation to appear more original. Mark [SIMILARITY RISK] if source dependence stays high.

OUTPUT OF STEP 1: full polished manuscript + a brief list of substantive language changes. Do not make new scientific revisions.

STEP 2 — TARGET JOURNAL ADAPTATION

Target journal:

[JOURNAL NAME]

Journal website/guidelines:

[LINK]

Adapt the manuscript to:

* journal aims and scope;
* manuscript template;
* word limits;
* abstract requirement;
* keywords;
* section structure;
* citation/reference style;
* tables;
* figures;
* declarations;
* ethics;
* funding;
* conflict of interest;
* author guidelines.

Do not alter scientific findings merely to fit the journal.

STEP 3 — FINAL PRE-SUBMISSION CHECK

Check:

TITLE
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
AUTHOR DETAILS
INTRODUCTION
METHOD
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
TABLES
FIGURES
CAPTIONS
CITATIONS
REFERENCES
DOI
ETHICS
FUNDING
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
DATA AVAILABILITY
AI DISCLOSURE IF REQUIRED
JOURNAL TEMPLATE
WORD COUNT.

Classify every remaining issue:

PASS
MINOR FIX
FIX BEFORE SUBMISSION
SUBMISSION BLOCKER.

End with:

READY FOR SUBMISSION

or

NOT READY FOR SUBMISSION.

If NOT READY, state exactly what must still be corrected.

INPUT:

[FINAL SCIENTIFICALLY LOCKED MANUSCRIPT]

[TARGET JOURNAL INFORMATION]

Jalur G: Artikel Netnography

Idea atau Dataset → Publication. Netnography-first · Evidence-first · Theory after pattern. Pilih jalur di bawah: A (mulai dari ide, 3 tahap) lalu wajib masuk Core 01-10. Kartu ★ Mixed-Methods Gate hanya bila evidence kurang.

G-A1 Research Opportunity from Idea Ubah fenomena menjadi masalah riset yang layak

Saya ingin mengembangkan riset Bisnis Digital berbasis netnography.

Fenomena awal: {{TOPIC}}
Platform/komunitas: {{FIELD}}
Target publikasi: {{TARGET}}

Jangan langsung membuat judul.

Pisahkan:
1. observable phenomenon;
2. practical business problem;
3. academic problem;
4. unresolved question;
5. possible process/mechanism;
6. actors;
7. digital interaction setting;
8. tensions/contradictions;
9. temporal dimension;
10. potential contribution.

Usulkan 3 arah riset paling defensible.
Untuk setiap arah berikan:
Research Problem | Why It Matters | Possible Unit of Analysis | Potential RQ | Potential Contribution | Netnography Suitability.

Jangan memakai novelty lemah seperti "belum banyak diteliti di Indonesia", lokasi baru, atau platform baru sebagai kontribusi utama.

G-A2 Literature Gap & RQ Kunci gap dan pertanyaan riset sebelum turun ke field

Topik: {{TOPIC}}
Konteks: {{FIELD}}
Hasil research opportunity: [PASTE OUTPUT A1]

Petakan literatur ke:
- Core phenomenon
- Digital Business/Management
- Relevant theory
- Comparable methods
- Recent frontier

Bedakan:
knowledge gap, theoretical gap, process gap, empirical gap, method gap, context gap.

Jawab:
A. Apa yang sudah mapan?
B. Apa yang masih belum jelas?
C. Apa competing explanation?
D. Process/mechanism apa yang belum cukup dipahami?
E. Apa yang realistis dapat ditambahkan studi saya?

Lalu rumuskan:
1. satu primary RQ;
2. maksimal dua supporting RQ bila perlu;
3. expected empirical contribution;
4. expected theoretical contribution;
5. expected practical contribution.

Jangan mengarang referensi. Gunakan [CHECK CITATION] bila perlu verifikasi.

G-A3 Field, Ethics & Data Collection Plan Rancang field dan corpus sebelum mengumpulkan data

Topik: {{TOPIC}}
RQ: [PASTE RQ]
Platform/community: {{FIELD}}

Rancang netnographic field strategy dan data collection plan.

Definisikan:
- field boundary
- observation period
- researcher role
- public/private status
- inclusion criteria
- exclusion criteria
- capture method
- metadata retained/removed
- fieldnotes
- reflexive memos
- anonymization/pseudonymization
- data storage
- audit trail

Buat ethics checklist:
privacy expectation, consent/permission, searchable quotation risk, usernames, screenshots, identifying links, restricted identity map, AI-assisted analysis, data retention.

Pisahkan:
RAW CORPUS → CLEAN CORPUS → ANONYMIZED CORPUS → ANALYTICAL CORPUS → PUBLICATION EVIDENCE.

Tandai masalah yang belum selesai sebagai [ETHICS ISSUE] atau [MISSING METHOD DETAIL].

Setelah tahap ini, kumpulkan data. Jika dataset sudah tersedia, lanjut ke CORE 01.

G-01 Dataset & Corpus Auditor Pahami apa yang sebenarnya Anda miliki sebelum mencari teori

Saya sudah memiliki dataset/corpus digital untuk riset netnography.

Topik sementara: {{TOPIC}}
Platform/community: {{FIELD}}
Target publikasi: {{TARGET}}

Dataset summary: [PASTE / UPLOAD DATASET OR DESCRIBE]

Audit dataset ini.

Identifikasi:
1. data source;
2. date range;
3. number of records/messages/posts;
4. number of unique participants/senders if available;
5. system-generated vs user-generated records;
6. missing/duplicate records;
7. sensitive identifiers;
8. conversation/context structure;
9. temporal richness;
10. interaction richness;
11. potential ethical risks;
12. suitability for netnography.

Pisahkan:
RAW DATA
CLEAN DATA
ANONYMIZED DATA
ANALYTICAL DATA.

Jangan membuat research title atau theory terlebih dahulu.

Akhiri dengan:
- DATASET READINESS: READY / NEEDS CLEANING / NOT READY
- apa yang perlu dibersihkan;
- apa yang harus dipertahankan agar konteks tidak hilang;
- potensi research opportunities yang terlihat dari karakter dataset, tanpa mengklaim findings sebelum analisis.

G-02 Research Opportunity Finder from Data Biarkan data menunjukkan fenomena yang layak diteliti

Saya ingin menemukan research opportunity dari dataset netnography, bukan memaksakan topik ke data.

Topik awal: {{TOPIC}}
Platform: {{FIELD}}
Dataset audit: [PASTE OUTPUT CORE 01]
Sample/context from corpus: [PASTE OR UPLOAD]

Cari secara hati-hati:
- recurring practices;
- tensions;
- breakdowns;
- adaptation;
- role changes;
- coordination patterns;
- boundary cases;
- contradictory behavior;
- temporal/process patterns;
- potentially important business implications.

Jangan menyebut sesuatu sebagai "finding" bila evidence belum cukup.

Usulkan 3 research directions yang paling sesuai dengan corpus.

Untuk setiap direction:
Research Problem
Possible RQ
Why the dataset can answer it
Possible unit of analysis
Evidence needed
Potential contribution
Main risk/limitation.

Pilih satu direction yang paling evidence-aligned, bukan yang terdengar paling trendi.

G-03 Episode & Unit-of-Analysis Builder Tentukan apakah message, thread, episode, event, atau case yang paling tepat

Topik: {{TOPIC}}
RQ: [PASTE RQ]
Dataset structure: [PASTE]
Platform: {{FIELD}}

Tentukan unit of analysis terbaik.

Pertimbangkan:
message/post
thread
interaction episode
event
user journey
temporal sequence
case
community discussion.

Untuk process-oriented netnography, uji apakah EPISODE-BASED ANALYSIS lebih tepat daripada isolated-message coding.

Jika episode-based cocok, definisikan:
- episode start rule
- episode end rule
- temporal-gap rule jika diperlukan
- inclusion rule
- exclusion rule
- minimum context
- participant boundary
- core episode criteria
- supporting/boundary/negative case criteria

Buat screening table:
Record/Cluster ID | Date | Participants | Context | Trigger | Action | Response | Outcome | RQ relevance | Include/Exclude | Reason.

Jangan menganggap temporal cluster otomatis merupakan meaningful episode.

G-04 Evidence-First Coding Studio Data → process codes → categories → cross-episode pattern

Analytical corpus: [PASTE / UPLOAD]
RQ: [PASTE]
Unit of analysis: [PASTE]

Gunakan evidence-first, process-oriented analysis.

Tahapan:
1. Familiarization
2. Open/action coding
3. Process coding
4. Episode-level coding
5. Cross-episode comparison
6. Category development
7. Pattern consolidation

Pisahkan dengan jelas:
DESCRIPTIVE CODE
PROCESS CODE
INTERPRETIVE CATEGORY
THEORETICAL CONCEPT

Untuk setiap episode tanyakan:
What is happening?
What triggered it?
Who/what acted?
What changed?
What happened next?
What control/constraint appeared?
What outcome was reported?
What remains uncertain?

Output:
- preliminary codebook
- episode coding matrix
- candidate categories
- cross-episode recurring patterns
- analytic memos

Jika AI membantu coding, semua suggestion bersifat provisional dan harus diverifikasi terhadap evidence asli.

G-05 Negative Case & Alternative Explanation Checker Cari data yang menantang cerita utama

Candidate patterns/findings: [PASTE]
Episode matrix/evidence: [PASTE]

Act as a skeptical qualitative reviewer.

Cari:
- negative cases
- boundary cases
- deviant cases
- contradictory evidence
- underused/failed configurations
- cases that do not follow dominant sequence.

Untuk setiap candidate finding tanyakan:
What else could explain this?
Could it reflect platform design, user capability, community culture, resource limits, context, temporal events, selection bias, or researcher interpretation?

Klasifikasikan:
ROBUST
PLAUSIBLE
TENTATIVE
WEAKLY SUPPORTED

Output:
Finding | Supporting Cases | Negative/Boundary Cases | Alternative Explanation | Revised Interpretation | Claim Strength.

Jangan mengarang counter-evidence.

G-06 Process & Mechanism Builder Ubah tema menjadi proses yang menjelaskan apa yang terjadi

Verified patterns: [PASTE]
Negative/boundary cases: [PASTE]
RQ: [PASTE]

Bangun process/mechanism hanya dari evidence yang tersedia.

Ekstrak:
TRIGGER
ACTOR
INITIAL CONFIGURATION
ACTION
INTERACTION
TENSION / BREAKDOWN
CONTROL / ADAPTATION
RECONFIGURATION
OUTCOME
FEEDBACK
BOUNDARY CONDITION

Cari apakah evidence mendukung sequence seperti:
Trigger → Initial configuration → Differentiation → Tension → Response → Reconfiguration → Outcome

Pisahkan:
- directly visible empirical relationships
- researcher interpretations
- theoretical propositions.

Output:
1. candidate process model;
2. mechanism explanation;
3. non-linear/iterative elements;
4. boundary conditions;
5. what the data do NOT support.

Jangan membuat causal claim jika desain tidak mendukung.

G-07 Theory Matcher — After Pattern Baru sekarang pilih teori yang paling menjelaskan process/mechanism

Topik: {{TOPIC}}
RQ: [PASTE]
Verified process/mechanism: [PASTE]

Sekarang pilih teori yang paling mampu MENJELASKAN pola empiris.

Pertimbangkan hanya bila relevan:
Dynamic Capabilities
RBV
TOE
Socio-Technical Systems
TTF
Institutional Theory
Technology Affordance Theory
TAM/UTAUT
Practice Theory
Distributed Cognition
Social Learning
Knowledge Sharing
Platform Ecosystem
atau teori lain yang lebih tepat.

Untuk setiap serious candidate:
- What it explains
- Core constructs
- Fit with process
- Fit with evidence
- What it cannot explain
- Risk of theory stretching

Gunakan THEORETICAL ECONOMY.

Rekomendasikan:
PRIMARY THEORY
OPTIONAL SUPPORTING LENS
THEORIES TO AVOID

Lalu jelaskan:
Evidence → Process → Mechanism → Theory → Contribution.

Jangan mengubah evidence agar cocok dengan teori.

G-08 Evidence Traceability Matrix Hubungkan setiap klaim besar dengan episode dan evidence

Bangun evidence-to-claim matrix untuk studi netnography saya.

Input:
RQ: [PASTE]
Episodes/cases: [PASTE]
Findings: [PASTE]
Mechanism: [PASTE]
Theory: [PASTE]

Untuk setiap major claim buat:
CLAIM
EMPIRICAL SOURCE
EPISODE / CASE / RECORD ID
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
COUNTER-EVIDENCE
INTERPRETATION
THEORETICAL LINK
CLAIM STRENGTH

Status:
VERIFIED
SUPPORTED WITH CAUTION
PARTIALLY SUPPORTED
OVERCLAIM
NO EVIDENCE

Flag:
- literature claim written as empirical finding
- finding based on one isolated example
- unsupported causal wording
- practical implication broader than evidence
- theory claim unsupported by empirical pattern

Tidak boleh ada major Findings/Discussion claim tanpa traceable empirical basis.

G-09 Manuscript Builder & Reviewer Attack Susun artikel lalu uji seperti reviewer sebelum language polishing

Target: {{TARGET}}
Topik: {{TOPIC}}

Input:
Research gap/RQ: [PASTE]
Method record: [PASTE]
Evidence matrix: [PASTE]
Verified findings: [PASTE]
Process/mechanism: [PASTE]
Theory: [PASTE]

PART 1 — MANUSCRIPT ARCHITECTURE
Buat outline:
Title
Abstract
Introduction: Phenomenon → Problem → Literature → Gap → RQ → Contribution
Theory
Method: field, corpus, episode construction, analysis, trustworthiness, ethics, AI assistance
Findings: organized by process/pattern, not theme list only
Discussion: Finding → Interpretation → Prior literature → Mechanism → Theory → Boundary → Contribution
Implications
Limitations
Conclusion

PART 2 — SCIENTIFIC MANUSCRIPT
Tulis hanya dari verified evidence.
Do not invent data, quotes, references, methods, or results.

PART 3 — REVIEWER ATTACK
Simulasikan:
Reviewer 1: Digital Business/theory
Reviewer 2: Netnography/qualitative methods
Reviewer 3: Journal editor

Audit:
Is this genuine netnography?
Is context preserved?
Is episode construction credible?
Are negative cases used?
Is evidence traceable?
Is theory explanatory rather than decorative?
Are findings mechanism-based?
Does Discussion exceed evidence?
Is ethics defensible?

Output:
Major concerns | Severity | Required fix | New data needed? YES/NO

Kemudian revisi hanya masalah yang dapat diperbaiki tanpa fabrikasi.

G-10 Scientific Lock → Humanizer → Journal Fit → Submit ⭐ Humanizer hanya setelah scientific content stabil

MANUSCRIPT STATUS: [CONFIRM SCIENTIFIC CONTENT LOCK]
Target publikasi: {{TARGET}}
Target journal: [JOURNAL NAME]
Author guidelines: [LINK]

PHASE A — SCIENTIFIC LOCK CHECK
Pastikan data, sample, episodes, findings, theory, method, claim strength, citations, tables, figures, and conclusions konsisten.
Jika masih ada substantive issue, STOP dan tandai sebelum language polishing.

PHASE B — ACADEMIC HUMANIZER
Perbaiki:
natural scholarly English
researcher voice
clarity
precision
paragraph flow
sentence rhythm
concision
terminological consistency

Do NOT optimize for AI-detector scores.
Do NOT change evidence, findings, method, theory, numbers, quotations, or claim strength.
Setelah selesai: LANGUAGE LOCK.

PHASE C — JOURNAL FIT
Cek:
aims & scope
recent related papers
article type
word limit
abstract
keywords
section structure
reference style
tables/figures
ethics
data availability
AI disclosure
anonymization
supplementary files.

Klasifikasikan:
MANDATORY CHANGE
RECOMMENDED CHANGE
OPTIONAL CHANGE.

PHASE D — PRE-SUBMISSION GATE
Status setiap item:
PASS / MINOR FIX / FIX BEFORE SUBMISSION / SUBMISSION BLOCKER.

Akhiri:
READY FOR SUBMISSION
atau
NOT READY FOR SUBMISSION.

PHASE E — SUBMISSION PACKAGE
Buat hanya jika dibutuhkan:
Cover Letter
Highlights
CRediT
Funding
COI
Data Availability
Ethics Statement
AI-use Disclosure
Suggested Reviewers.

Jangan membuat declaration yang belum dikonfirmasi penulis.

G-MIX ★ Mixed-Methods Gate (Opsional) Uji apakah netnography cukup — jangan tambah metode sekadar terlihat kuat

Saya menggunakan netnography sebagai metode inti.

Topik: {{TOPIC}}
RQ: [PASTE]
Verified findings/process so far: [PASTE]
Available additional evidence: [DESCRIBE]

Tentukan apakah metode tambahan benar-benar diperlukan.

Uji kebutuhan:
- private reasoning → interview?
- wider pattern/generalization → survey?
- interaction structure → SNA?
- actual workflow → logs/system records?
- business outcome → performance data?
- causal test → experiment/quasi-experiment?
- organizational context → case study?

Pilih hanya jika menambah jenis evidence yang tidak bisa diberikan netnography.

Output:
1. PURE NETNOGRAPHY SUFFICIENT? YES/NO
2. If NO: recommended secondary method
3. exact evidence gap it solves
4. sequence
5. sampling/data needs
6. integration point
7. joint-display structure
8. risk of unnecessary complexity

Do not add methods just to make the study look stronger.

✅ Sebelum submit

• Konsistensi terminologi di semua bab · Keselarasan Abstract & Conclusion · Alur logika kuat · Penomoran heading rapi · Semua sitasi ada di daftar referensi (dan sebaliknya).