| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.162 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.605 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.493 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.696 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.086 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.329 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.326 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.304 | -0.207 |
Andalas University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational governance alongside critical vulnerabilities in publication practices. With an overall score of 0.484, the institution exhibits exceptional control over risks related to author affiliation, impact dependency, hyperprolific authors, and internal publication channels. These areas of very low risk suggest robust internal policies and a strong foundation for ethical research. However, this positive performance is contrasted by significant alerts in Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Discontinued Journals, and a medium-level concern regarding Retracted Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds prominent national positions in key thematic areas, including Veterinary (6th), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (13th), Engineering (18th), and Physics and Astronomy (19th). The identified risks, particularly those related to citation and publication venue selection, directly challenge the university's mission "to undertake fundamental scientific and innovative applied research" and "strengthen the institution through the application of good university governance." These practices could undermine the perceived "excellence" of its research and its commitment to disseminating science for societal benefit. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the university focuses on mitigating these specific publication-related risks, thereby safeguarding its reputation and reinforcing its leadership in its areas of thematic strength.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.162, which is below the national average of -0.674. This result indicates a commendable absence of risk signals, aligning with the low-risk standard observed nationally. The university's performance suggests a consistent and clear policy regarding author affiliations. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's very low rate demonstrates strong governance that prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that credit for research output is attributed transparently and accurately.
With a Z-score of 0.605, the institution shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of 0.065. This suggests that the university is more exposed to the factors leading to publication retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 3.493, a figure that significantly surpasses the national average of 1.821. This value indicates that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the wider system. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The university shows a Z-score of 2.696 in this critical indicator, which, while high, is below the national average of 3.408. This suggests that although the institution is a global outlier in publishing in problematic journals, it demonstrates more control than the critically high national average. This attenuated alert still points to a significant issue. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical warning regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This 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, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.086, the institution demonstrates a more rigorous approach to authorship than the national standard, which has a Z-score of -0.938. This prudent profile indicates that the university effectively manages authorship practices to avoid inflation. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability and transparency. The institution's controlled rate serves as a positive signal that it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby upholding the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.329 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.391. This excellent result shows an absence of risk signals and aligns with a healthy national context, indicating that the university's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where an institution's impact is reliant on collaborations it does not lead. The university's very low score, however, confirms that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, reflecting a sustainable and autonomous research ecosystem.
The university's Z-score in this area is -1.326, well below the national average of -0.484. This demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard, suggesting effective oversight of individual research productivity. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score indicates it successfully avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and instead prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.189, which indicates a medium risk level for the country. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. The university's very low rate shows it successfully avoids these pitfalls, ensuring its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and instead seeks validation through independent, external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.304, which is lower than the national average of -0.207. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's lower-than-average score indicates a healthier approach, prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume and helping to maintain the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
