| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.152 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.861 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.611 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.871 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.071 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.303 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.153 | -0.207 |
Hasanuddin University demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational transparency and a commitment to external validation. The institution exhibits exceptionally low risk in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, indicating clear and ethical practices that stand out favorably against the national backdrop. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. The significant rates of Institutional Self-Citation and, most notably, Output in Discontinued Journals, suggest systemic issues that could undermine the credibility of its research and its global standing. These risks directly challenge the university's mission to "create sciences, technology, arts, and cultures" for societal prosperity, as channeling work through low-quality venues and inflating impact through internal validation compromises the real-world value of its dissemination efforts. These integrity challenges coexist with clear thematic excellence, as evidenced by its top national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Arts and Humanities (1st), Dentistry (5th), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (6th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (8th). To safeguard its reputation and fully align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its areas of integrity strength to develop targeted interventions and enhanced governance policies focused on improving citation practices and ensuring the selection of high-quality publication channels.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.152, a value indicating a very low risk level that is even more conservative than the national average of -0.674. This result suggests a commendable alignment with national standards for transparency in academic collaboration. The absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the university maintains clear and unambiguous affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's low rate demonstrates a strong control environment that effectively prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing its commitment to straightforward academic accounting.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a low risk of retractions, a figure that contrasts positively with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This disparity highlights the university's institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that may be more prevalent across the country. A low retraction rate, in this context, is a sign of responsible supervision and robust quality control prior to publication. It indicates a healthy integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that might be affecting its national peers.
The institution's Z-score of 2.861 is at a significant risk level, a figure that accentuates the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 1.821. This indicates that the university is not only participating in a national trend but is amplifying it, pointing to a particularly high risk of operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals concerning scientific isolation where the institution may be validating its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a serious risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global community.
The university's Z-score of 4.611 represents a significant risk, a critical situation that positions it as a leader in this negative metric even within a country already highly compromised (national Z-score of 3.408). This constitutes a global red flag for the institution's due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert, indicating that a significant portion of its 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 and immediate need for information literacy and policy enforcement to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.871 is in the low-risk category, closely mirroring the national average of -0.938. However, the slightly higher value for the university points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While the current level is not alarming, this subtle signal suggests a need to monitor authorship practices to ensure they remain transparent and accountable. If this trend were to grow, it could indicate a dilution of individual responsibility or the emergence of 'honorary' authorship, making proactive oversight a prudent measure.
The institution exhibits a medium-risk Z-score of 0.071, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.391. This difference suggests the university shows greater sensitivity than its national peers to a dependency on external collaboration for its citation impact. A positive gap, where global impact is higher than the impact of institution-led research, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 0.303, the institution shows a medium level of risk, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.484). This unusual risk level for the national standard requires a review of its causes. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university appears more prone to these dynamics, which prioritize metrics over scientific integrity, than its environment average.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level, where the average score is 0.189 (medium risk). This is a significant strength, indicating the university does not replicate the national tendency toward academic endogamy. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances its global visibility and protects it from the risk of using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
The institution's Z-score of -0.153 falls within the low-risk range, which is consistent with the national average of -0.207. However, the university's slightly higher score suggests an incipient vulnerability. While the current rate is not problematic, it serves as an early signal that warrants monitoring. This subtle difference could indicate the initial stages of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Continued attention is needed to ensure that the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing publication volume.
