The Copenhagen Fake Research Scandal: A Mirror of Indonesia's Fragile Academic Ecosystem

Data claimed to cover dozens of countries, from Ethiopia to Peru, was allegedly created with the help of artificial intelligence. There were no local collaborators, no ethical approvals, and no real research actually conducted in the field. The courage of Udayana University marine science lecturer Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika and Wa Ode Dwi Daningrat, an Indonesian researcher pursuing a doctoral programme at the University of Oxford, in speaking out about this fraud, which might never have been uncovered otherwise, deserves appreciation. The question that arises is why the existing system allowed such fraud to occur, even repeatedly. It is suspected that the perpetrator had already carried out a similar pattern at a conference in Taiwan a year before the Copenhagen scandal emerged. This means the action was a planned strategy that managed to pass through various layers of selection. According to the Minister of Higher Education, Science, and Technology, Brian Yuliarto, the motive in this case was to obtain travel grants awarded to academics from developing countries to attend international conferences. To obtain a travel grant, a person generally only needs to show proof that their research abstract has been accepted for presentation, or a letter of acceptance from the conference committee. There is no mechanism to validate whether the claimed data was genuinely obtained through real research. The system relies entirely on the applicant’s honesty, and that is what was allegedly exploited in this case. This scandal should drive real improvement, not just a temporary response. First, the review system in international conferences must be improved, especially for those applying for travel funds. Conducting random checks on the veracity of data and the completeness of research ethics approvals is a reasonable and implementable step. Second, research institutions in Indonesia, from universities to BRIN and the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology, must honestly evaluate the current incentive system. If only the number of publications and participation in international forums are assessed, then the system indirectly encourages the padding of numbers by any means. Third, building a culture of academic integrity cannot rely solely on written codes of ethics. It must be practised in daily life, in supervising students, in assessing research quality, and in the courage to report irregularities. Amid this disappointing news, one thing still offers hope. Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika and Wa Ode Dwi Daningrat have proven that there are still Indonesian researchers who uphold integrity, even when it means bearing significant risk and social pressure. Restoring the good name of Indonesian academia will not be achieved merely by punishing individuals. What is needed is systemic improvement, the strengthening of an honest research culture, and genuine appreciation for those who work well quietly, without attention, amidst various limitations. The Copenhagen case is a warning. The question now is: are we serious enough to make it a turning point?