| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.049 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.202 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.973 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.590 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.437 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.414 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.207 |
Jambi University demonstrates a commendable overall performance in scientific integrity, characterized by significant strengths in operational conduct but marked by a critical vulnerability in its publication strategy. The institution exhibits a robust internal culture that effectively mitigates risks related to authorship practices, self-citation, and research redundancy, often performing better than the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic strengths lie in Veterinary, Psychology, and Earth and Planetary Sciences, where it holds strong national rankings. However, the extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals presents a direct and serious threat to its mission of achieving "excellent higher education services" and "international standards." This practice undermines the perceived quality of its research and compromises its goal of producing "competitive graduates." To safeguard its academic reputation and align its practices with its mission, it is imperative that the university leverages its evident strengths in governance to urgently address and rectify its criteria for selecting publication venues, thereby ensuring its research excellence is both genuine and globally recognized.
The institution's Z-score of -1.049 is well below the national average of -0.674, indicating a very low-risk profile in this area. This demonstrates a consistent and responsible approach to academic collaboration that aligns with national standards. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the absence of disproportionately high rates at the university suggests that its collaborative practices are transparent. The data indicates that affiliations are a result of genuine scientific partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.202, the institution shows a lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.065, which is in the medium-risk range. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A lower rate indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively, preventing the kind of systemic failures, recurring malpractice, or lack of methodological rigor that a higher rate would imply, thereby protecting its culture of integrity.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.973, which, while indicating a medium risk, is considerably lower than the national average of 1.821. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's ability to keep this rate below the national trend suggests it is less prone to the scientific isolation of 'echo chambers' or the endogamous impact inflation that can arise when an institution's work lacks sufficient external scrutiny from the global community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.590, a critical value that significantly exceeds the already high national average of 3.408. This constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in but amplifies a highly compromised national practice. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This finding suggests a systemic vulnerability where a significant portion of scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.437 is higher than the national average of -0.938, although both remain in the low-risk category. This slight elevation points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This metric serves as a signal to monitor authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship, ensuring transparency and accountability are maintained.
The institution's Z-score of -0.414 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.391, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is as expected for its context, suggesting a balanced relationship between the impact of its overall output and the impact of the research it leads. This alignment implies that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. Instead, it reflects a healthy and sustainable development of its own internal capacity to produce impactful research.
With a Z-score of -1.413, significantly lower than the national average of -0.484, the institution demonstrates an exemplary low-risk profile in this area. This absence of signals related to hyperprolific authors reflects a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The data indicates that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This reinforces the integrity of its scientific record by showing that extreme publication volumes, which challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, are not a feature of its research environment.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.189, moving from a medium national risk to a very low institutional one. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university avoids replicating risk dynamics common in its environment. By not over-relying on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.186, markedly below the national average of -0.207, indicating a very low-risk profile. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, with an absence of risk signals that aligns with a high standard of integrity. The data suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity is not a concern. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume strengthens the institution's scientific contribution and respects the integrity of the academic review system by not overburdening it with fragmented output.
