| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.290 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.526 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.593 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.904 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.361 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.323 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.255 | -0.207 |
The Bandung Institute of Technology presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.116 indicating a performance that is generally aligned with sound research practices. The institution demonstrates remarkable resilience, effectively mitigating several systemic risks prevalent at the national level, particularly in the areas of retracted publications and output in discontinued journals. Key strengths are evident in its very low risk of dependency on external research leadership and its minimal use of institutional journals, underscoring a commitment to generating structurally sound impact and embracing external validation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this foundation of integrity supports its leadership in core thematic areas, including top national rankings in Engineering (2nd), Energy (3rd), and Computer Science (5th). However, moderate risks in institutional self-citation and incipient vulnerabilities related to hyperprolific authors and multiple affiliations present a potential conflict with its mission "to produce excellent human resources for a better Indonesia and the world." These practices, if left unmonitored, could foster academic insularity and prioritize quantity over the "excellence" and innovation central to its vision. To fully realize its mission, the institution is encouraged to build upon its solid governance framework by proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its contributions remain both impactful and unimpeachable on a global scale.
The institution's Z-score of -0.290 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Although both the center and the country operate within a low-risk range, this subtle divergence suggests that the institution is beginning to show signals of risk activity that are less pronounced nationally. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward trend warrants a review. It is crucial to ensure that these affiliations reflect genuine collaboration rather than early signs of strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, a practice that could escalate if not monitored.
With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience compared to the national Z-score of 0.065. While the country shows a medium-level risk for retractions, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, the institution's significantly lower rate compared to the national trend indicates that its quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust, preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can damage an institution's integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score of 1.526 reflects a medium risk, which is slightly lower than the national average of 1.821. This indicates a form of differentiated management where the center is successfully moderating a risk that appears to be a common, systemic pattern across the country. While a certain level of self-citation is natural in developing established research lines, the medium-level risk for both suggests a national tendency towards scientific isolation. The institution's ability to keep its rate below the national average shows a positive effort to avoid 'echo chambers' and the endogamous inflation of impact, though the risk still warrants attention to ensure its work receives sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution exhibits relative containment of a critical national problem, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.593 in a country facing a significant-risk Z-score of 3.408. This discrepancy shows that although risk signals exist within the institution, it operates with more order and diligence than the national average. Publishing in discontinued journals exposes an institution to severe reputational risks by associating its research with media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. While the institution is clearly filtering out these 'predatory' practices more effectively than its peers, the remaining medium-level risk highlights an ongoing need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to fully protect its resources and reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.904, the institution's activity in hyper-authored output is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.938. This alignment indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context and size, with no unusual signals of authorship malpractice. In certain "Big Science" fields, extensive author lists are legitimate and necessary. The low and consistent scores suggest that, for both the institution and the country, authorship practices are in line with disciplinary norms and do not point to widespread issues of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability through 'honorary' authorships.
The institution demonstrates exceptional low-profile consistency with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.361, which is significantly better than the country's low-risk score of -0.391. The absence of risk signals aligns with, and improves upon, the national standard. A wide gap in this indicator can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. The institution's very low score indicates the opposite: its scientific impact is robustly supported by research where it exercises intellectual leadership, pointing to a sustainable and self-sufficient model of excellence that is not reliant on exogenous collaboration.
The institution's Z-score of -0.323 indicates an incipient vulnerability, as it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.484, even though both are in the low-risk category. This suggests the institution shows early signals of risk that warrant review before they escalate. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, and it is advisable to review the specific cases to mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, which prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.
A Z-score of -0.268 places the institution in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country has a medium-risk Z-score of 0.189. The institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where publishing in-house appears more common. By avoiding its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances its global visibility and confirms that it does not rely on internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.255 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.207. With both scores in the low-risk range, the level of redundant publication is as expected for the context and does not signal a systemic problem. This indicates that the practice of 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by dividing a single study into minimal publishable units—is not a significant concern. The observed level of bibliographic overlap is consistent with the natural process of citing previous work for cumulative knowledge building, rather than a strategy to distort the scientific record for metric gain.
