| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.521 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.052 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.885 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.859 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.695 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.507 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.207 |
Universitas Islam Malang presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity, counterbalanced by a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. With an overall score of 0.461, the institution demonstrates a solid foundation in responsible authorship practices, evidenced by very low risk levels in hyperprolificacy, redundant publication, and use of institutional journals. These strengths suggest a culture that prioritizes quality and external validation. The university's academic prowess is reflected in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, with strong national positions in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Social Sciences. However, a significant risk in the rate of publication in discontinued journals directly challenges the institutional mission to become a "world class university" and uphold "good university governance." This practice undermines the pursuit of excellence and international standards, potentially compromising the real-world impact of its strongest research areas. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the university is advised to implement a robust strategy for vetting publication venues, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its research contributes meaningfully to the global academic community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.521 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674, indicating a low but incipient vulnerability. This slight divergence from the national trend suggests that while the overall risk is minimal, the university's researchers engage in multiple affiliations more frequently than their national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this signal warrants a review to ensure these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Monitoring this trend is a prudent step to maintain transparency in institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution demonstrates institutional resilience, effectively mitigating a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 0.065). Retractions are complex events, but a rate below the national average suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning more effectively than those of its peers. This performance indicates that potential methodological errors or integrity issues are likely being identified and corrected prior to publication, reflecting a responsible research culture and a strong defense against the systemic failures that can lead to a high retraction rate.
The institution exhibits differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.885, which is notably lower than the national average of 1.821. This indicates that the university moderates a risk that is common throughout the country's research system. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the institution demonstrates a healthier reliance on external scrutiny and validation, reducing the risk of endogamous impact inflation and suggesting its academic influence is more authentically recognized by the global community.
This indicator represents a global red flag for the institution, with a Z-score of 3.859 that exceeds an already critical national average of 3.408. This result signals that the university not only participates in a high-risk national trend but is a leading contributor to it. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, indicating that a significant portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The institution's Z-score of -0.695, while low, is slightly above the national benchmark of -0.938, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests a marginally higher tendency toward publications with extensive author lists compared to the national norm. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are standard, this pattern can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. While the current level is not alarming, it serves as a signal to proactively ensure that authorship is granted based on meaningful contributions and to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.507, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.391. A negative score in this indicator is positive, suggesting a small gap between the impact of its overall output and the output where its researchers have leadership roles. This indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in strong internal capacity. This performance contrasts with the risk of strategic positioning in collaborations where an institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, and instead points to sustainable, self-driven research excellence.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, showing a near-total absence of risk signals in an area where the country shows some activity (Z-score: -0.484). This very low score is a sign of institutional health, indicating that its researchers maintain a sustainable and realistic publication volume. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme productivity, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is moderately prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.189). This very low reliance on its own journals is a significant strength, demonstrating a clear commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding the potential conflicts of interest inherent in acting as both judge and party, the university ensures its research is validated against global standards. This practice enhances its international visibility and mitigates the risk of academic endogamy or the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without competitive scrutiny.
The institution shows excellent low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a virtual absence of this risk behavior compared to the national landscape (Z-score: -0.207). This result strongly suggests that the university's researchers prioritize the publication of coherent, significant studies over artificially inflating productivity. The lack of massive bibliographic overlap between publications indicates a culture that discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice that distorts scientific evidence. This commitment to substantive contributions reinforces the integrity and value of the institution's research output.
