| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.487 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.303 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.665 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.210 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.235 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.567 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.377 | -0.207 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.532, Binus University presents a solid performance profile characterized by significant strengths in research governance alongside specific, addressable vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control over authorship practices, intellectual leadership, and a commitment to external validation, as evidenced by very low-risk indicators in Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, NI Difference, and Output in Institutional Journals. However, strategic attention is required to mitigate a significant risk in publishing in discontinued journals—a national issue the university is already managing better than its peers—and to address medium-level risks in institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications. This integrity profile underpins the university's recognized leadership in key areas, as evidenced by its top national rankings in Business, Management and Accounting (#1), Computer Science (#1), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (#4), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (#5) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks, particularly those related to publication channels and research fragmentation, present a direct challenge to the mission of providing "world-class education" and fostering "excellence in scholarship." By leveraging its demonstrated strengths in governance to address these vulnerabilities, Binus University can further solidify its position as a benchmark for academic excellence and responsible research, fully realizing its vision of creating outstanding leaders for the global community.
The university's Z-score of -1.487, compared to the national average of -0.674, indicates an exemplary and consistent absence of risk signals in this area, aligning with and even surpassing the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score demonstrates robust and transparent affiliation practices, ensuring that institutional credit is earned and attributed correctly, free from artificial inflation.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.146 in a national context that shows a medium-risk tendency (Z-score 0.065). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present elsewhere in the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. The university's ability to maintain a low rate indicates that its pre-publication review processes and integrity culture are functioning as a strong safeguard against recurring malpractice or methodological flaws.
With a Z-score of 2.303, the university shows a higher exposure to this risk factor than the national average (Z-score 1.821), even though both operate within a medium-risk band. This indicates that the institution is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate warns of potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. It suggests a risk that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by global community recognition, warranting a review of citation practices.
The university faces a significant alert with a Z-score of 2.665, reflecting a critical, widespread issue also seen at the national level (Z-score 3.408). However, the institution's score is notably lower than the country's average, indicating that it is managing to attenuate this risk with more control than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is still being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.210 is well within the very low-risk category, favorably comparing to the country's low-risk average of -0.938. This consistency demonstrates a clear absence of risk signals related to authorship inflation. When this pattern appears outside 'Big Science' contexts, it can indicate practices that dilute individual accountability. The university's excellent score suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship.
With a Z-score of -1.235, the university shows a very low risk in this area, a significantly stronger position than the national low-risk average of -0.391. This result indicates a healthy balance and a lack of dependence on external partners for impact. A very wide positive gap can signal that an institution's scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. The university's score, however, suggests that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, reflecting a sustainable and robust research ecosystem.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the university's medium-risk Z-score of 1.567 contrasting sharply with the low-risk national average of -0.484. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to risk factors related to extreme productivity than its national peers. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This score alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 while the country shows a medium-risk tendency (Z-score 0.189). This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals raises conflicts of interest and can lead to academic endogamy. The university’s low score signals a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output.
The institution's medium-risk Z-score of 1.377 marks a moderate deviation from the national context, which has a low-risk average of -0.207. This suggests a greater internal sensitivity to practices of research fragmentation. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications usually indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This score alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a trend that distorts available scientific evidence and warrants internal review to ensure that contributions are significant and novel.
