| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.575 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.268 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.020 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.635 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.055 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.279 | -0.207 |
Atma Jaya Yogyakarta University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.052 indicating a performance well-aligned with global best practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining research sustainability, with very low-risk indicators for the impact gap from collaborations, hyperprolific authorship, and hyper-authorship, suggesting a culture that prioritizes organic capacity and meaningful contributions. This solid foundation is further evidenced by its effective mitigation of national trends in institutional self-citation and use of in-house journals. Key vulnerabilities are concentrated in two areas: a moderate rate of output in discontinued journals and a rate of multiple affiliations that deviates from the national norm. Thematically, the university shows strong positioning within Indonesia according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Business, Management and Accounting. To fully honor its mission of "service in the light of truth" and "excellent work," it is crucial to address the identified risks, as they can subtly undermine the principles of transparency and quality. By reinforcing due diligence in publication channels and clarifying affiliation policies, the university can ensure its operational practices are in complete harmony with its commendable institutional values and strong research core.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.575, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.674. This suggests the institution exhibits a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's higher rate warrants a review. It could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which, if unmanaged, could compromise the transparency of institutional contributions and reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.268 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.065, the university demonstrates notable institutional resilience. This performance indicates that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk more prevalent at the national level. A low rate of retractions suggests that the university's quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust. This is a sign of a healthy integrity culture, where methodological rigor successfully prevents the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that can lead to a higher retraction rate.
The university shows strong resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.020, in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 1.821. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms successfully mitigate the country's systemic tendency toward high self-citation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate demonstrates that it avoids the risk of becoming a scientific 'echo chamber.' This performance confirms that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the external scientific community rather than being artificially inflated by endogamous dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.635, while indicating a medium-risk signal, demonstrates relative containment when compared to the critical national average of 3.408. Although a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, the university is managing this widespread national issue with more order than its peers. This finding still constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid reputational risks and the misallocation of resources to predatory or low-quality practices.
The university's Z-score of -1.401 signifies a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even improves upon, the national standard (-0.938). This absence of risk signals indicates that the institution's authorship practices are well-aligned with international norms. The data strongly suggests that author lists are not being artificially inflated, thereby upholding principles of individual accountability and transparency and ensuring that credit is assigned based on meaningful contributions.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -2.055, far below the country's already low-risk average of -0.391, the university demonstrates a remarkably healthy and sustainable research model. This low-profile consistency shows that there is no significant gap between the impact of its overall output and the work it leads directly. This is a clear indicator that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on the contributions of external collaboration partners.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 reflects a complete absence of hyperprolific authorship, a position that is fully consistent with the low-risk national environment (-0.484). This result points to a healthy institutional balance between productivity and quality. It suggests that the university is free from dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without genuine participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The institution exhibits a pattern of preventive isolation, with a Z-score of -0.268 placing it in the very low-risk category, in sharp contrast to the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.189). By not replicating the risk behaviors of its environment, the university demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation. This avoidance of excessive dependence on its own journals mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent peer review and is positioned for global visibility rather than being fast-tracked through internal channels.
The university maintains a prudent profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.279 that is slightly more rigorous than the national standard (-0.207). This performance indicates that the institution manages its publication processes with a high degree of care, effectively preventing data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The data suggests a culture that prioritizes the contribution of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.
