Telkom University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Telkom University demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in its low global risk score of 0.253. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining responsible authorship practices, with very low risk signals in Hyper-Authored Output, Redundant Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research indicates strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by critical areas requiring immediate attention, most notably a significant risk level in Institutional Self-Citation, which far exceeds the national average. Medium-level risks in Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Hyperprolific Authors also warrant strategic review. These findings are particularly relevant given the university's outstanding performance in key thematic areas, including top national rankings in Computer Science (3rd), Engineering (3rd), and Business, Management and Accounting (7th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of achieving "internationally recognized" science and utilizing it for national advancement, it is crucial to address the risk of academic insularity suggested by the self-citation patterns. Ensuring that the pursuit of excellence is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific integrity will solidify the university's role as a leader in technology and innovation.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.488, which is within the low-risk range but slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring to ensure it does not escalate. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this indicator serves as a reminder to maintain clear and transparent affiliation policies. The current level indicates a statistical normality in collaborative practices, but it is prudent to ensure that these affiliations consistently reflect substantive contributions rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.032, the institution's rate of retractions is comparable to the national average of 0.065, placing both in the medium-risk category. This alignment suggests the institution is reflecting a systemic pattern common within the country's research ecosystem. Retractions are complex events, and their presence is not inherently negative. However, a medium-risk score indicates that the volume of retractions is notable enough to suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges. This shared national trend points to a need for reinforcing methodological rigor and pre-publication review processes to safeguard the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 3.513, a significant-risk value that starkly contrasts with the country's medium-risk average of 1.821. This indicates a pronounced accentuation of risk, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice carries a high risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of 1.478 in this medium-risk indicator, demonstrating significantly better performance than the national average, which stands at a critical 3.408. This reflects a successful relative containment of risk; although some exposure exists, the university operates with more order and diligence than its national environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the selection of dissemination channels, as it may expose the institution to reputational damage from 'predatory' or low-quality practices. The university's ability to moderate this widespread national issue is commendable, but continued vigilance and researcher training on journal selection are essential to further mitigate this risk.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.136, the institution demonstrates a very low risk in hyper-authorship, performing better than the national low-risk average of -0.938. This result shows a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This indicates that authorship practices at the institution are generally transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or inflated authorship lists. This responsible approach strengthens the credibility of its research contributions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -1.477 is in the very low-risk category, a stronger position compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.391. This excellent result demonstrates low-profile consistency and indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not overly dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's impact is derived from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. Telkom University's negative score, however, suggests the opposite: the research led by its own authors has a strong impact, reflecting real internal capacity and a sustainable model for scientific excellence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution has a Z-score of 0.033, placing it at a medium-risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.484. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to extreme individual productivity than its national peers. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low risk in this area, standing in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.189. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids risk dynamics observed elsewhere in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The institution's very low score indicates a healthy preference for publishing in external, competitive venues, which enhances its global visibility and reinforces the credibility of its validation processes.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.493 signifies a very low risk of redundant publication, outperforming the national low-risk average of -0.207. This finding points to low-profile consistency, where the institution's practices align with an environment of scientific integrity. A high rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity, which distorts scientific evidence. The university's very low score suggests that its researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent bodies of work over sheer volume, contributing to a healthier and more reliable scientific ecosystem.