Universitas Gunadarma

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universitas Gunadarma presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.469 reflecting significant strengths alongside critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas related to research ethics and internal governance, showing very low risk in the rates of hyperprolific authors, redundant output, and publications in institutional journals. This foundation suggests a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity and avoids academic endogamy. These strengths support the university's notable performance in key thematic areas, including its rankings within Indonesia for Computer Science and Business, Management and Accounting, as documented by SCImago Institutions Rankings. However, this positive performance is contrasted by two significant risks: a high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a substantial gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these vulnerabilities directly challenge any objective of achieving sustainable academic excellence and global recognition, suggesting that its current prestige may be reliant on external partners and its publication strategy requires urgent revision. A strategic focus on improving publication channel selection and fostering internal research leadership will be crucial to leveraging its existing strengths and ensuring long-term scientific integrity and impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.444 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674, indicating an incipient vulnerability despite both values being in a low-risk range. This minor divergence suggests that while the university's practices are generally aligned with national norms, it shows slightly more activity in this area. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this subtle increase warrants a proactive review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not indicative of early-stage "affiliation shopping" aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.099, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retractions, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This disparity points to effective institutional resilience, suggesting that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in its environment. This low rate indicates that potential methodological flaws or malpractice are likely being identified and corrected prior to publication, reflecting a robust culture of integrity that prevents the kind of systemic failures a higher score would imply.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.277 is in the low-risk category, standing in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.821. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience against academic endogamy. By maintaining a low level of self-citation, the university ensures its research is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This practice strengthens the credibility of its academic influence, confirming that its impact is driven by recognition from the global community, not by internal dynamics that can artificially inflate prestige.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a significant-risk Z-score of 3.105, which, while high, is slightly below the critical national average of 3.408. This situation represents an attenuated alert; the university is part of a widespread national issue but shows marginally more control. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical flaw in due diligence, indicating that a substantial amount of research is channeled through outlets failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity platforms.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.231, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is higher than the national average of -0.938, though both fall within the low-risk range. This difference highlights an incipient vulnerability that warrants attention. While extensive author lists are normal in 'Big Science,' their appearance in other fields can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This indicator serves as a prompt for the institution to ensure its authorship practices remain transparent and distinguish clearly between necessary large-scale collaboration and the inclusion of 'honorary' authors.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's significant-risk Z-score of 3.487 and the low-risk national average of -0.391. This atypical and high-risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. The wide positive gap reveals that while the university's overall impact is high, the impact of research led by its own authors is low, signaling a critical risk to its scientific sustainability. This suggests that its academic prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, potentially stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. It is crucial to determine whether its excellence metrics reflect genuine internal capacity or are a byproduct of external partnerships.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, aligning well with the low-risk national standard of -0.484. This demonstrates low-profile consistency and a healthy research environment. The clear absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the university fosters a culture where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained. This effectively prevents the emergence of dynamics such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, which can be associated with extreme publication volumes.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low rate of publication in its own journals, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score 0.189). This is a sign of strong academic governance. By minimizing reliance on in-house journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research undergoes rigorous, independent external peer review. This strategy enhances its global visibility and confirms that its output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks.'

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is very low, placing it well below the low-risk national average of -0.207. This result shows low-profile consistency and reflects sound scientific practice. The absence of signals for redundant output indicates that researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant findings reinforces the integrity of the scientific record and demonstrates a focus on meaningful knowledge contribution over volume.