Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin Makassar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin Makassar demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, achieving an exceptional overall score of 0.911. This performance is anchored in significant strengths, particularly in maintaining scientific independence, fostering a culture of quality over quantity, and ensuring research undergoes external validation. The institution exhibits very low risk in areas such as the impact gap from leadership (Ni_difference), the rate of hyperprolific authors, redundant publications, and output in institutional journals. These results indicate a strong internal governance that successfully insulates the university from several systemic risks prevalent at the national level, such as high rates of institutional self-citation and retracted publications. However, this commendable profile is critically undermined by a single, severe vulnerability: an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals, which significantly exceeds the already high national average. This issue directly threatens the institution's mission to achieve "universal research" of high "quality" and "competitiveness." While the university shows outstanding national leadership in key thematic areas, including a Top 7 ranking in Arts and Humanities and a Top 16 position in Social Sciences according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the practice of publishing in low-quality venues risks devaluing these academic achievements. To fully align its practices with its mission of excellence and scientific tradition, it is imperative that the university implements urgent measures to improve information literacy and due diligence in the selection of publication channels.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.551 is within the low-risk range, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This indicates a state of statistical normality, but also points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation compared to national peers suggests that the institution shows slightly more signals of this activity. It is advisable to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping,” thereby preventing this trend from escalating.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This disparity highlights a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider national context. This strong performance indicates that the university's quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust. Unlike the national trend, which may point to recurring issues, the institution's low rate suggests that its integrity culture is successfully preventing the kind of methodological or ethical failures that lead to retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a low Z-score of -0.309 in institutional self-citation, which is a sign of strength when compared to the medium-risk national average of 1.821. This demonstrates effective institutional resilience against the risk of academic insularity. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution avoids the disproportionately high rates seen elsewhere in the country, which can signal 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is being validated by the broader global community, not just by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 6.719 represents a significant and urgent risk, marking a global red flag. This value is not only critically high on its own but also substantially surpasses the already compromised national average of 3.408. This indicates that the university is a leading contributor to a problematic national trend, amplifying a shared vulnerability to a critical level. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a severe alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests a systemic need for improved information literacy among its researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into 'predatory' or low-quality media that do not meet international ethical standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.706, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is low, but slightly higher than the national benchmark of -0.938. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that should be monitored. While the current level does not indicate a problem, especially as extensive author lists can be legitimate in some fields, the slight upward trend relative to its peers could be an early warning of author list inflation. It is important to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable, distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from the potential dilution of responsibility through 'honorary' attributions.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.287, a very low-risk value that is notably better than the national low-risk average of -0.391. This demonstrates low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals in an area where peers show some vulnerability. A low score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own intellectual leadership. This is a sign of structural health and sustainability, confirming that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, performing significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.484. This excellent result reflects low-profile consistency and a complete absence of the risk signals associated with extreme publication volumes. This indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting the institutional culture does not encourage practices like coercive authorship or data fragmentation. The lack of hyperprolific authors reinforces the integrity of the scientific record and points to a research environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued over sheer metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This finding signals a preventive isolation, where the center actively avoids a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring that its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than potentially biased internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -1.186, a very low value that is substantially better than the national low-risk average of -0.207. This result shows low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals, aligning with the highest standards of publication ethics. It indicates that researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating their productivity by dividing work into 'minimal publishable units.' This commitment to presenting complete research findings strengthens the scientific record and demonstrates a culture that prioritizes the generation of new knowledge over the maximization of publication counts.