Islamic University of Indonesia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Islamic University of Indonesia demonstrates a robust overall performance with a score of 0.648, reflecting a strong foundation in scientific integrity marked by significant strengths and specific, addressable vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits exceptional control in areas such as Hyper-Authored Output, Redundant Output, and publication in institutional journals, maintaining very low risk profiles that often surpass national standards. Furthermore, it shows notable resilience by mitigating risks related to Retracted Output and Institutional Self-Citation, which are more prevalent across the country. However, strategic attention is urgently required in two key areas: a moderate deviation from the national norm in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and, most critically, a significant risk level in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which exceeds an already high national average. These integrity metrics are contextualized by the university's strong academic standing, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it among the nation's top institutions in key areas such as Energy, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Business, Management and Accounting. The identified risks, particularly the reliance on questionable publication channels, directly challenge any institutional mission centered on excellence and societal contribution, as they can undermine the credibility of its otherwise outstanding research. By focusing on strengthening due diligence in publication choices and clarifying affiliation policies, the Islamic University of Indonesia can protect its hard-earned reputation and solidify its position as a leader in ethical and impactful research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.118, a figure that shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.674. This suggests the university is more exposed to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the notable difference compared to the low-risk national context warrants a review of internal practices. This elevated rate could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," and a closer examination is advisable to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.249, the institution demonstrates effective control in an area where the country shows a medium risk (Z-score: 0.065). This performance indicates a high degree of institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms successfully mitigate systemic risks present in the wider environment. Retractions can be complex, but a low rate like this, especially when contrasted with the national trend, points towards a robust integrity culture and effective pre-publication vetting, reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of -0.329 is significantly lower than the national average of 1.821, highlighting strong institutional resilience against a prevalent national trend. While some self-citation is natural, the country's medium-risk score suggests a broader tendency towards scientific isolation. In contrast, the institution's low score indicates that its research is validated by the wider external community, successfully avoiding the "echo chambers" that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This demonstrates a commitment to global scientific dialogue rather than relying on internal dynamics for validation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 4.062 is a critical alert, not only because it falls into the significant risk category but also because it surpasses the already high national average of 3.408. This situation represents a global red flag, indicating that the university is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals suggests a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.169, the institution shows an absence of risk signals that is consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.938). This very low score reflects well-managed authorship practices that align with international norms of transparency and accountability. The data suggests the university effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like honorary authorship, thereby preserving the integrity of individual contributions to its scientific output.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.402 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.391. This indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context, showing a healthy and sustainable balance between the impact generated in collaboration and the impact of research led internally. This result suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and that it does not suffer from an over-reliance on external partners for its impact, mitigating risks to its long-term research sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -0.512 is statistically normal and virtually identical to the national average of -0.484. This alignment indicates that the institution's productivity patterns are typical for its environment, without showing signs of extreme outliers. This suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, avoiding the integrity risks associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low risk category, marking a clear and positive isolation from the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk level (Z-score: 0.189). This demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution actively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review strengthens the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.562, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of risk signals, a profile that is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.207). This very low rate indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity. The data suggests that researchers are focused on producing coherent, impactful studies rather than engaging in "salami slicing," a practice that fragments data into minimal units and burdens the scientific review system.