| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.498 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.098 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.952 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.080 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.017 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.909 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.255 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.303 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.374 | -0.207 |
Brawijaya University demonstrates a moderate overall integrity profile with a score of 0.483, characterized by a mix of significant strengths in research leadership and notable vulnerabilities in publication practices. The institution exhibits exceptional control in areas such as the impact of its led research and the management of hyperprolific authorship, indicating a solid foundation of internal scientific capacity. However, this is contrasted by critical exposure to risks associated with publishing in discontinued journals, alongside medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation, retracted output, and publication in its own journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strong thematic positioning, particularly its top-tier national rankings in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, Environmental Science, and Veterinary, provides a powerful platform for global impact. These risks, especially those related to publication quality and academic endogamy, directly challenge the university's mission to "propagate science" and "enrich the national culture," as they can undermine the credibility and external validation of its research. By strategically addressing these integrity gaps, Brawijaya University can ensure its operational practices fully support its academic excellence, thereby solidifying its role as a leader in improving people's standard of living through robust and reputable science.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.498, slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This score suggests an incipient vulnerability. While the rate of multiple affiliations is low for both the university and the country, the institution displays signals that, while minor, warrant review to prevent escalation. Multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, but it is crucial to monitor this trend to ensure it reflects genuine collaboration rather than early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of 0.098, the university's rate of retractions is slightly above the national average of 0.065. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its national peers. Retractions are complex; some signify responsible error correction. However, a rate that deviates from the national pattern, even within a medium-risk context, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing greater stress or failing more frequently than in other institutions. This vulnerability in the integrity culture points to a potential for recurring methodological issues that require qualitative verification by management to prevent reputational damage.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 1.952, which is slightly higher than the national average of 1.821. This pattern indicates a high exposure, where the institution is more susceptible to this risk than its peers. While some self-citation is natural for consolidating research lines, this elevated rate can signal a concerning level of scientific isolation or an "echo chamber." It warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately validated by internal dynamics rather than through broader recognition from the global scientific community, potentially limiting the reach and external validation of its work.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.080 in this area, compared to the national average of 3.408. This situation represents an attenuated alert; while the university's rate is critically high and a global outlier, it demonstrates slightly more control than the national average. A high Z-score is a critical warning that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing venues.
With a Z-score of -1.017, the institution displays a lower rate of hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of -0.938. This reflects a prudent profile, indicating that the university manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. This controlled approach helps mitigate the risks of author list inflation and ensures that accountability and transparency are maintained, distinguishing its collaborative practices from potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorships that can dilute individual contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.909 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.391. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard of relying on external partners for impact, but Brawijaya University shows a much stronger internal capacity. A very low score indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external collaborators. This reflects a healthy and sustainable research ecosystem where excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.
The university has a Z-score of -1.255, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.484. This finding points to low-profile consistency, where the institution's complete absence of risk signals in this area surpasses the already low-risk national standard. This indicates strong oversight and a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. By effectively managing extreme individual publication volumes, the university avoids potential imbalances such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 0.303 is higher than the national average of 0.189, signaling high exposure to this risk factor. This suggests the institution is more prone than its national counterparts to publishing in its own journals. While in-house journals can be useful for local dissemination, this heightened dependence raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This trend warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.374, which is lower than the national average of -0.207. This indicates a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its publication strategies with more rigor than the national standard. By maintaining a low rate of bibliographic overlap between publications, the institution effectively discourages the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity. This commitment ensures that its research contributes significant new knowledge rather than distorting scientific evidence and overburdening the peer-review system.
