| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.472 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.317 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.276 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.035 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.026 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.207 |
The University of Bengkulu demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile (Overall Score: 0.310), characterized by significant strengths in maintaining structural research independence and fostering a culture of responsible authorship. The institution exhibits very low risk in key areas such as the gap between its total and led research impact, the rate of hyperprolific authors, and the use of institutional journals, indicating a solid foundation of internal capacity and a commitment to external validation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's strongest thematic areas include Arts and Humanities, Energy, and Engineering, where it holds prominent national positions. However, this strong performance is contrasted by two critical vulnerabilities: a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals and a high rate of institutional self-citation. These practices directly challenge the University's mission to "develop world-class education and research" and establish "good and clean university governance," as they suggest potential isolation from global quality standards and an over-reliance on internal validation. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic aspirations, it is recommended that the University implement targeted interventions to improve journal selection criteria and promote broader external engagement, thereby solidifying its path toward sustainable, world-class excellence.
The University's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.472) is low and broadly aligns with the national standard (Z-score: -0.674), though it shows a slightly higher tendency. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation could be an early signal of emerging "affiliation shopping" practices designed to inflate institutional credit. Proactive monitoring is advisable to ensure this indicator remains within the bounds of standard collaborative patterns and does not escalate into a reputational risk.
The University of Bengkulu demonstrates strong institutional resilience by maintaining a low rate of retracted publications (Z-score: -0.277), particularly in a national context where this is a medium-level risk (Country Z-score: 0.065). This performance suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic vulnerabilities seen elsewhere in the country. A rate significantly lower than the average indicates a robust integrity culture, where pre-publication methodological rigor and responsible oversight successfully prevent the types of recurring malpractice or errors that could otherwise lead to retractions and damage scientific credibility.
The institution exhibits a high exposure to risks associated with institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of 2.317 that surpasses the already medium-risk national average (Z-score: 1.821). This pattern suggests the University is more prone than its peers to operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate warns of potential endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community. This practice could signal a concerning degree of scientific isolation that limits external scrutiny and validation.
The University faces a significant challenge regarding its rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: 3.276), a critical issue that is also prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 3.408). Although the institution's rate is slightly below the country's average, it remains an attenuated alert and a global outlier. This high proportion of output channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a critical vulnerability. It signals a systemic weakness in the due diligence applied to selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.035, the institution maintains a prudent profile in its authorship practices, performing with more rigor than the already low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.938). This low incidence of hyper-authored publications is a positive signal. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are normal, high rates can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The University's controlled rate suggests a healthy academic culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby reinforcing transparency.
The University demonstrates excellent low-profile consistency in its research impact, with a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads (Z-score: -1.026). This performance is notably stronger than the national standard (Z-score: -0.391), where a wider gap is more common. This result signals that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from genuine internal capacity rather than being dependent on external partners. It reflects a mature research ecosystem where the University exercises true intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring its excellence metrics are a direct result of its own capabilities.
The institution shows a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors (Z-score: -1.413), a strong signal of integrity that aligns with a low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.484). The absence of risk signals in this area is a positive indicator of a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's low score suggests its institutional culture effectively discourages practices like coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.
The University achieves a state of preventive isolation by not replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding publications in institutional journals. Its very low Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the medium-level risk prevalent nationally (Z-score: 0.189). This indicates a clear strategic choice to prioritize external, independent peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research gains global visibility and is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency with a very low rate of redundant output (Z-score: -1.186), performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.207). The absence of risk signals in this area points to a research culture that values substance over volume. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The University's excellent performance here suggests its researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant contributions to knowledge, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
