Airlangga university

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Airlangga University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 1.633, the institution demonstrates notable strengths, particularly in its near-total avoidance of academic endogamy, a common risk in the region. This commitment to external validation aligns with its mission to achieve "world class excellence." This ambition is further supported by outstanding performance in several key disciplines, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds the #1 national position in critical fields such as Dentistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Psychology, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. However, this pursuit of excellence is critically undermined by an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals, a practice that far exceeds an already compromised national average. This, along with moderate risks in retractions and affiliation management, directly contradicts the mission's emphasis on "quality" and "good governance," suggesting a disconnect between strategic goals and operational research practices. To safeguard its reputation and build upon its clear thematic strengths, the university is advised to leverage this report as a strategic tool for targeted interventions, focusing on enhancing due diligence in publication channels to ensure its research output fully reflects its stated commitment to international standards.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.279, which contrasts with the national average of -0.674. This indicates a moderate deviation from the national context, where the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher rate warrants a review to ensure these practices are driven by genuine scientific collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." A proactive analysis of affiliation patterns is recommended to confirm they align with institutional partnership policies and contribute substantively to research outcomes.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.643, the university's rate of retractions is notably higher than the national average of 0.065, despite both falling within a medium-risk classification. This suggests the institution is more exposed to the underlying causes of retractions than its peers. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when correcting honest errors; however, a Z-score this far above the national baseline suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating a potential for recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.983, a figure that indicates a more controlled approach compared to the national average of 1.821. This demonstrates differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. By keeping this rate below the national trend, the university mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and avoids the perception of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than primarily by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 7.099 is a critical red flag, significantly amplifying a national vulnerability where the country average is already a high 3.408. This positions the university as a leader in a high-risk practice within a compromised environment. This extremely high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its 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 suggests an urgent and systemic need to improve information literacy and due diligence among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication channels.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.899 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.938. This indicates that the university's authorship patterns are as expected for its context and size, without unusual signals of risk. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's low and standard score suggests that its collaborative practices are generally appropriate and do not show evidence of widespread 'honorary' or political authorship, reflecting a healthy approach to assigning credit.

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

With a Z-score of 0.559, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.391, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, can signal a sustainability risk. The university's score suggests its scientific prestige may be more dependent on external partners than is typical for the country. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not consistently exercise intellectual leadership, a potential vulnerability for long-term scientific autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -0.105, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.484, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests the institution is beginning to show signals that warrant review before they escalate. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to nascent risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.268, placing it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.189 (medium risk). This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's extremely low score indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, setting a standard of best practice in its national context.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.038, the university's rate of redundant output is higher than the national average of -0.207, though both remain at a low-risk level. This slight elevation points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the institution shows early signals that warrant monitoring. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. While the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests that a review of publication ethics guidelines could be a valuable preventive measure to ensure research contributions remain significant and avoid overburdening the scientific review system.