| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.803 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.288 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.989 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.730 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.389 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.415 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
1.765 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.314 | -0.207 |
The University of Indonesia demonstrates a strong overall integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of 0.322. This performance is anchored in a solid foundation of responsible research practices, with exceptionally low-risk indicators in areas such as Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and Redundant Output. These strengths suggest a robust internal culture that prioritizes scientific rigor and ethical conduct. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly in publication channel selection (Output in Discontinued Journals and Institutional Journals) and the dependency on external collaborations for impact (Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership). These challenges coexist with the institution's clear thematic leadership, as evidenced by its top national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings in critical fields like Engineering, Medicine, Social Sciences, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. This leadership position directly supports its mission to "meet national and global challenges." Nevertheless, the identified risks, especially those related to publication strategy, could undermine its ambition to create "graduates with good virtues that can compete globally" by potentially limiting international visibility and validation. To fully align its operational practices with its mission of excellence, it is recommended that the University of Indonesia leverages its foundational integrity to develop targeted strategies that enhance publication due diligence and foster greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations, thereby ensuring its long-term sustainability and global competitiveness.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.803, a value even lower than the already low national average of -0.674. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk indicator. The data confirms a complete absence of signals associated with the strategic use of multiple affiliations to inflate institutional credit. The university's affiliation practices are well within the standard norms of legitimate researcher mobility and partnerships, reflecting a transparent and appropriate representation of its collaborative work.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution shows a negligible rate of retractions, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk signals observed at the national level (Z-score 0.065). This positive gap indicates a successful preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics present in its environment. A high rate of retractions can suggest that pre-publication quality control mechanisms are failing systemically. In this case, the university's extremely low score is a testament to its robust supervision and a strong integrity culture that effectively prevents methodological or ethical failures before they enter the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.288 is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the medium-risk national average of 1.821. This demonstrates a clear isolation from national tendencies toward academic insularity. While some self-citation is natural, high rates can create 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without external scrutiny. The university's performance indicates it successfully avoids this risk, ensuring its academic influence is built on global community recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.989 signals a medium level of risk, which, while concerning, demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's critical Z-score of 3.408. This suggests that although risk signals are present, the university operates with more control than the national average. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The current score indicates that a notable portion of its output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational harm and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -0.730, the institution shows minimal risk in this area, a figure that is very close to the national Z-score of -0.938. Both values exist in a context of very low risk, making the minor difference between them mere residual noise. This indicates that the institution's authorship patterns are appropriate for its disciplinary context and show no signs of the author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships that can dilute individual accountability and transparency in the scientific record.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.389, a medium-risk signal that constitutes a monitoring alert due to its stark divergence from the low-risk national standard of -0.391. This unusual pattern suggests that while the institution's overall impact is high, its scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap warns of a sustainability risk, where excellence metrics could result more from strategic positioning in collaborations than from genuine internal capacity for intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to foster more homegrown, high-impact research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.415 is very low and closely mirrors the national Z-score of -0.484, indicating a shared environment of minimal risk. The slight variation is statistically insignificant, representing only residual noise. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The university's low score confirms a healthy balance between quantity and quality, with no evidence of systemic practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of 1.765, the institution shows a medium level of risk, reflecting a systemic pattern also present nationally (Z-score 0.189). However, the university's score is substantially higher, indicating high exposure to this risk. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production bypasses independent external peer review. This practice risks limiting global visibility and may suggest the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records without undergoing standard competitive validation, a concern that warrants strategic review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.314 demonstrates total operational silence in this area, a performance that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.207. This complete absence of risk signals indicates that the practice of fragmenting a single study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity is not present. The data confirms a commendable institutional focus on publishing coherent and significant new knowledge, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence and avoiding an unnecessary burden on the peer-review system.
