| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.191 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.070 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.065 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
8.281 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.967 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.808 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.534 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.662 | -0.207 |
Ahmad Dahlan University presents a profile of significant strengths counterbalanced by critical, targeted vulnerabilities. With an overall integrity score of 1.690, the institution demonstrates robust governance in key areas, notably a very low reliance on institutional journals and minimal evidence of redundant publications, which fosters external validation and credibility. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its recognized leadership in thematic areas such as Mathematics (ranked 9th nationally), Engineering (12th), Psychology (13th), and Computer Science (14th), as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong performance is severely undermined by an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals, a critical risk that directly conflicts with the university's mission to "advance sciences" and maintain "good university governance." This practice, along with a noted dependency on external collaborations for impact and a higher-than-average concentration of hyperprolific authors, suggests that operational metrics may be prioritized over the strategic integrity of its research output. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university must urgently address its publication channel selection policies, ensuring its commendable thematic excellence is not compromised by reputational risks.
The institution's Z-score of -0.191 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This indicates an incipient vulnerability. While the rate of multiple affiliations is within a low-risk range, its position above the national baseline suggests an emerging trend that warrants observation. If this pattern continues to grow, it could signal a shift towards strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to inflate institutional credit rather than reflecting legitimate research collaborations. Proactive monitoring is recommended to ensure this indicator remains within a healthy operational range.
With a Z-score of 0.070, the institution's rate of retracted publications is nearly identical to the national average of 0.065. This alignment suggests the university is experiencing a systemic pattern shared across the country's academic landscape. Retractions can signal a vulnerability in the integrity culture, and this shared risk level points towards a potential weakness in pre-publication quality control mechanisms that is not unique to the institution but reflects a broader environmental challenge. It underscores the need for reinforced institutional oversight to safeguard against recurring methodological or ethical lapses.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a Z-score of -0.065, in stark contrast to the national average of 1.821. This performance indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While the national trend suggests a potential for "echo chambers" where impact is inflated through internal validation, the university's low rate of self-citation confirms that its academic influence is earned through external scrutiny and recognition by the global scientific community, avoiding the risks of endogamous citation practices.
The institution's Z-score of 8.281 is a global red flag, drastically exceeding an already compromised national average of 3.408. This result signals a critical failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. A significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and indicates an urgent and systemic need to implement robust information literacy programs and stricter publication policies to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality venues.
The institution's Z-score of -0.967 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.938. This result indicates that the university's authorship patterns are as expected for its context and size. The data does not suggest any unusual activity related to author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability, confirming that its collaborative practices are consistent with established norms in its primary fields of research.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from its peers, with a Z-score of 1.808 compared to the national average of -0.391. This wide positive gap indicates a greater sensitivity to a specific sustainability risk: the university's scientific prestige appears to be highly dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This suggests that its strong overall impact metrics may be derived from strategic positioning in partnerships rather than from its own structural research capacity, inviting a strategic reflection on how to bolster internally-led, high-impact research.
With a Z-score of 0.534, the institution displays a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.484, showing a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. This higher concentration of authors with extreme publication volumes serves as a cautionary signal, alerting to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality. Such hyper-productivity can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to underlying risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, warranting a closer review of authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a pattern of preventive isolation, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a national context where the average is 0.189. By not replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment, the university demonstrates a strong commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. This very low reliance on its own journals ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, mitigating conflicts of interest and enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, setting a benchmark for integrity against the national trend.
The institution maintains a profile of low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -0.662, which is even lower than the low-risk national average of -0.207. The clear absence of risk signals in this area aligns with a healthy national standard. This indicates that the university's research culture prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity through data fragmentation or "salami slicing," thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
