Sultan Agung Islamic University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Sultan Agung Islamic University demonstrates a robust overall performance profile, marked by significant strengths in research integrity that strongly resonate with its mission. The institution excels in maintaining very low rates of hyper-prolific authorship, hyper-authored output, and publication in institutional journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes genuine contribution and external validation over metric inflation. Furthermore, its effective management of retractions showcases a resilience that surpasses national trends. However, a critical vulnerability emerges in the high rate of publication in discontinued journals, which poses a direct threat to the university's mission of achieving "quality," "nobility of morals," and "the highest quality of intellectuality." This practice undermines the credibility of its research output and contradicts its foundational Islamic values. Thematically, the university shows notable strength in areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Physics and Astronomy, and Computer Science, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align its scientific practice with its strategic vision, the university must urgently address its publication strategies, ensuring that its dissemination channels reflect the same high standards of integrity evident in its authorship and quality control practices. By doing so, it can safeguard its reputation and more effectively fulfill its role in building a "Khaira ummah generation."

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.153, while low, is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.674, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that the university shows early signals of risk activity that are not as prevalent in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation warrants a proactive review to ensure that all affiliations are the product of genuine collaboration and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.230, the institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.065, which indicates a moderate risk level. This suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider national context. A low rate of retractions is not a sign of inactivity but rather points to a culture of responsible supervision and methodological rigor, where potential errors are addressed before publication, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 1.512 reflects a differentiated management approach, as it is below the national average of 1.821. This indicates that the university is successfully moderating a risk that is otherwise common in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines; however, by keeping this rate below the national trend, the institution mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, demonstrating a healthier balance between validating its own work and seeking external scrutiny from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 5.373 is a global red flag, indicating a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. This score is significantly higher than the already compromised national average of 3.408, positioning the university as a leader in this high-risk metric. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.148, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the complete absence of risk signals aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.938). This indicates that authorship practices at the university are well-calibrated and transparent. The data suggests a clear distinction between necessary large-scale collaboration and problematic 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and the integrity of authorship credit.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.208, when compared to the national average of -0.391, points to an incipient vulnerability. This value suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be slightly more dependent on external partners than is typical for the country, signaling a potential sustainability risk. While collaboration is essential, this gap warrants reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and positioning it well below the national average of -0.484. This low-profile consistency is a strong positive indicator of a healthy research culture. It suggests that the university effectively avoids the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, thereby prioritizing the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer quantity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, as it avoids the moderate risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.189). By not relying heavily on its own journals, the university successfully sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, which in turn enhances its global visibility and credibility, rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.029 indicates an incipient vulnerability, as it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.207. This signal suggests that the university's practices warrant review before they escalate. While citing previous work is a necessary part of cumulative science, this minor elevation could be an early indicator of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Monitoring this trend is crucial to ensure the focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than simply increasing publication volume.