| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.005 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.447 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.618 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.578 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.930 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.276 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.551 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.506 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.803 | -0.207 |
Bogor Agricultural University presents a profile of solid scientific integrity, with an overall risk score (-0.143) that aligns with the global average, yet reveals a notable internal dichotomy. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas of fundamental research quality, showing very low risk in retracted output, redundant publications, and multiple affiliations. A key highlight is its outstanding performance in the leadership impact gap, indicating that its scientific prestige is built upon strong, self-led internal capacity. However, this robust core is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a high rate of output in its own institutional journals and a critically high rate of institutional self-citation. These indicators point towards a pattern of academic endogamy that could limit the global reach and external validation of its research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university is a national leader, ranking first in Indonesia in critical fields such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Veterinary, and Physics and Astronomy, and second in Environmental Science. While these thematic strengths are undeniable, the identified risks of insularity directly challenge the university's mission to produce "globally insightful" graduates and be a "trend setter of innovation." True global leadership requires broad external engagement, and an over-reliance on internal validation mechanisms can undermine the credibility of its claim to "pioneering superior and leading research." To fully realize its ambitious vision, it is recommended that the university strategically address these endogamous practices, fostering greater international collaboration and seeking validation in top-tier external venues to ensure its outstanding research receives the global recognition it merits.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.005, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.674. This demonstrates a clear and transparent affiliation policy, showing no signs of the risk dynamics present in the wider national environment. The university’s profile suggests that its collaborative practices are managed with integrity, avoiding any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of its research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.447, the university maintains a very low rate of retracted publications, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.065). This is a strong indicator of institutional health, suggesting that its quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This preventive stance protects the university from the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate would imply, showcasing a robust integrity culture that prioritizes methodological rigor and responsible research conduct.
The institution's rate of self-citation is a significant concern, with a Z-score of 2.618 that sharply accentuates the medium-risk vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 1.821). While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning degree of scientific isolation. It suggests the formation of an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny, creating a high risk of endogamous impact inflation. This practice may lead to an academic influence that is oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The university demonstrates relative containment of a critical national issue, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.578 in a country facing a significant-risk scenario (Z-score: 3.408). Although some risk signals are present, the institution operates with more order than the national average, suggesting its researchers exercise greater due diligence in selecting publication channels. However, a medium score still indicates that a portion of its scientific output is channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This warrants a reinforcement of information literacy programs to fully mitigate reputational risks and avoid the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.930) is statistically normal and almost perfectly aligned with the national context (Z-score: -0.938). This low-risk level indicates that authorship practices are consistent with disciplinary norms and do not show signs of inflation. The data suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby maintaining transparency and individual accountability in its publications.
The university shows a remarkable strength in its research leadership, with a Z-score of -1.276, indicating a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. This performance is significantly better than the national average (Z-score: -0.391) and signals a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainability. This result confirms that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is generated by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, reflecting a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding author productivity, with a Z-score of -0.551, which is slightly more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score: -0.484). This low-risk indicator suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality in its research output. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over purely metric-driven productivity.
The university shows high exposure to risks associated with publishing in its own journals, with a Z-score of 0.506 that is notably higher than the national average (Z-score: 0.189), despite both being in the medium-risk category. This heightened dependence on in-house journals raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might bypass independent external peer review. It could limit the global visibility of its research and suggests that internal channels may be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution demonstrates exemplary practice in avoiding redundant publications, with a very low Z-score of -0.803, far below the already low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.207). This absence of risk signals indicates a strong institutional focus on producing significant and novel contributions to knowledge. The data confirms that the university's researchers are not engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity, a practice that distorts scientific evidence. This commitment to substance over volume reinforces the integrity and value of its research portfolio.
