| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.222 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.023 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.995 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.088 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.026 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.250 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.088 | -0.207 |
The Electronics Engineering Polytechnic Institute of Surabaya demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.234 indicating performance that is stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional governance over authorship practices and its focus on developing self-reliant, high-impact research, as evidenced by very low risk levels in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, the Gap in Impact Leadership, and the Rate of Multiple Affiliations. Furthermore, the Institute shows remarkable resilience, effectively insulating itself from high-risk national trends such as publishing in discontinued or institutional journals. The most significant area for strategic improvement is the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, which is at a critical level and amplifies a national vulnerability. This practice risks creating an academic 'echo chamber' that could undermine the institution's mission to produce "open-minded" graduates ready to "compete in the global era." By addressing this insularity, the Institute can better align its practices with its stated values of academic ethics and social morals. The institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas like Energy (Top 16), Computer Science (Top 25), and Engineering (Top 36), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation of excellence. A focused effort to enhance external validation and reduce self-referential patterns will ensure its research impact is both genuine and globally recognized, solidifying its role as a leader in Indonesian polytechnic education.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.222, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.674. This result indicates a very healthy and transparent approach to academic affiliations. The complete absence of risk signals in this area places the institution in alignment with a low-risk national environment, demonstrating exemplary practices. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's extremely low rate confirms a culture where institutional credit is not being strategically inflated, reinforcing clarity and accountability in its collaborative research footprint.
With a Z-score of 0.023, the institution's rate of retractions is comparable to the national average of 0.065, placing both in a medium-risk category. This alignment suggests that the institution is facing systemic challenges common throughout the country's research ecosystem. Retractions are complex events, but a persistent medium rate suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This shared vulnerability points to a need for a broader review of methodological rigor and integrity culture to prevent recurring malpractice or unintentional errors from reaching publication.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 2.995, a significant risk level that sharply contrasts with and exacerbates the country's medium-risk average of 1.821. This finding is a critical alert, as it suggests the institution is amplifying a national vulnerability. While some self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution maintains a medium-risk Z-score of 0.088, a figure that demonstrates remarkable control when compared to the country's critical Z-score of 3.408. This indicates that although some risk signals are present, the institution operates with significantly more order and diligence than the national average. It has successfully contained a widespread national issue, suggesting its researchers exercise greater care in selecting dissemination channels. This effective governance prevents the large-scale waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality media, thereby protecting the institution from the severe reputational damage affecting the wider system.
The institution's Z-score of -1.026 is slightly better than the national average of -0.938, positioning it with a prudent and rigorous profile within an already low-risk environment. This demonstrates that the institution manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. This careful approach helps ensure that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency and avoiding the risk of 'honorary' or inflated authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -1.250, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk, performing even better than the country's low-risk average of -0.391. This excellent result signals strong and sustainable internal research capabilities. The minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is instead driven by research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. This reflects a high degree of scientific maturity and confirms that its high-impact performance is structural and endogenous, not merely the result of strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a virtual absence of hyperprolific authors and outperforming the already low national average of -0.484. This lack of extreme publication volumes points to a healthy academic culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer quantity. It suggests the institution is effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record and fostering a balanced research environment.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that signifies a deliberate disconnection from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.189). This demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global standards. By not replicating the risk dynamics of its environment, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and is subjected to independent, external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.088, the institution's risk level is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.207. This minor deviation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants attention before it escalates. While the overall risk is contained, the data points to a slightly greater tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' compared to its national peers. This practice, which involves dividing a study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, should be monitored to ensure that the institution continues to prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge.
