| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.856 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.912 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.374 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.179 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.900 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.623 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.309 | -0.207 |
Jember University demonstrates a generally solid integrity profile, reflected in its overall score of 0.360, which points to a robust operational foundation alongside specific, high-priority areas for improvement. The institution exhibits commendable strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for Hyper-Authored Output, the gap in leadership impact, and publications in its own journals, often performing better than the national average. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by a critical-level risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which mirrors a national trend, and medium-level risks in Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are most pronounced in Chemistry and Dentistry, where it holds a top-10 national ranking, complemented by strong positions in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. The significant risk associated with publishing in discontinued journals directly undermines the university's mission to develop "quality" education and achieve "international standards." This practice threatens to devalue its research and compromise its goal of "accountable management," creating a perception that conflicts with its pursuit of innovation and excellence. To safeguard its reputation and fully align its practices with its ambitious mission, Jember University should prioritize a focused strategy on enhancing scholarly communication literacy and implementing rigorous journal selection policies, thereby leveraging its clear thematic strengths for sustainable, high-integrity growth.
The institution maintains a prudent profile in managing academic affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.856, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.674. This suggests that the university's collaborative framework is well-governed. While multiple affiliations are a normal part of modern research, this controlled rate indicates that the institution effectively avoids strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensures that co-authorships are a result of legitimate partnerships rather than attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit.
Jember University demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with its quality control mechanisms appearing to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent at the national level. The institution's Z-score of -0.324 is significantly healthier than the country's medium-risk average of 0.065. This low rate suggests that the university's pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are effective, preventing the types of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retractions. It reflects a strong integrity culture where the correction of the scientific record is managed responsibly.
The university exhibits differentiated management of its citation practices, moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. Its Z-score of 0.912 is considerably lower than the national average of 1.821, indicating a healthier balance. A certain level of self-citation is natural to show research continuity; however, by keeping this rate in check, the institution reduces the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous validation. This approach suggests a greater focus on engaging with and being recognized by the broader international scientific community.
The institution is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic shared at the national level, with its Z-score of 3.374 being almost identical to the country's average of 3.408. This high value constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The institution shows low-profile consistency in its authorship practices, with a complete absence of risk signals that aligns perfectly with the national standard. The Z-score of -1.179, compared to the country's -0.938, points to exemplary management of author lists. This indicates that, outside of legitimate "Big Science" collaborations, the university successfully prevents author list inflation, thereby ensuring that credit is transparent, individual accountability is maintained, and 'honorary' authorships are avoided.
The university demonstrates a sustainable and autonomous research impact model, with no evidence of dependency on external collaborators for its scientific prestige. Its Z-score of -0.900 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.391, indicating a strong alignment between its overall impact and the impact of research led by its own academics. This low-profile consistency confirms that the institution's scientific excellence is structural and driven by genuine internal capacity, rather than being a reflection of a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.623, which is below the national average of -0.484, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in managing author productivity, applying more rigor than the national standard. This low rate indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality of output. It suggests the university is effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby fostering a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The university achieves a state of preventive isolation, successfully avoiding the risk dynamics related to in-house publishing that are observed in its environment. Its very low Z-score of -0.268 stands in sharp contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.189. This indicates a strong commitment to external, independent peer review and global visibility. By not relying on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, exhibiting greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with redundant publications. Its Z-score of 0.309 is higher than the country's average of -0.207, which warrants a review of publication practices. This value alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study might be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
