Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Research gap (RG), studies in the abstract and introduction sections in the last 5 years have been widely conducted by researchers. Still, the writers must write this adequately even though writing RG in these two sections is crafting a research article. The novelty constructed in this study is the writing of RG strategies in the introduction and abstract sections by Indonesian-language article writers in accredited national journals. This is believed to further boost the quality of articles and convince readers to read the article further. Data in the form of author speech when reconstructing RG strategies in the abstract and introduction sections. Data collection using document techniques. Miles's (2017) theory was used to analyze the data, with thematic analysis techniques. Findings; (a) the use of research gap strategies in the introduction in the form of knowledge gaps (KG), (b) but this tendency is not used if the author uses evidence gap (EG), practical knowledge gap (PKG), and theoretical gap (TG) strategies. Furthermore, (c) RG is only written once in the introduction and abstract sections. Based on observations of 4 Sinta 2 journals, with a study of 40 articles in Indonesian, only 2.86 percent wrote gap research in the introduction, and 2.5% wrote RG in the abstract. The implication is that the RG writing style in the introduction and abstract needs to be infused more significantly because the writing of RG in both parts has a significant effect on the quality of the article. The limitation of this study is only carried out for Indonesian articles that have been published in indexed national journals (Sinta2), so further research is needed to formulate a novelty strategy, and formulate an argumentative strategy that is evaluative, critical, and problematic in the abstract and introduction writing sections so that readers are more interested in reading the article.
oktaviani et al. (Tue,) studied this question.