| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.641 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.137 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.450 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.068 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.965 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.536 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.399 | -0.207 |
General Soedirman University demonstrates a robust integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research governance that effectively counteract several risk trends prevalent at the national level. With an overall score of 0.416, the institution excels in maintaining very low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in its own journals, alongside commendable resilience against national tendencies for high self-citation and retractions. However, this solid foundation is challenged by two key vulnerabilities: a medium-risk gap in research impact dependent on external leadership and a concerning rate of redundant publications. These areas require strategic attention to ensure that the institution's strong performance in areas like Pharmacology, Medicine, Mathematics, and Economics—where it ranks among the top 25 nationally according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data—is built on sustainable, internally-led excellence. Aligning these operational realities with the mission to produce graduates with "moral responsibilities" and "academic and professional competences" is paramount; addressing the identified risks will reinforce this commitment, ensuring that institutional growth is synonymous with unwavering scientific quality and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.641 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.674, indicating a risk profile that is entirely consistent with its operational context. This alignment suggests that the university's collaborative patterns are normal and do not present unusual signals. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the current data shows no evidence of such practices, reflecting a standard and expected level of researcher mobility and partnership engagement without raising integrity concerns.
With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national average of 0.065, which signals a medium risk. This contrast suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions indicates that pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are strong, preventing the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that can damage an institution's integrity culture. This performance is a positive sign of responsible scientific oversight.
The university's Z-score of -0.450 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 1.821, showcasing strong institutional resilience against a prevalent national trend. While the country data suggests a tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers', the institution's low score indicates its research is validated through sufficient external scrutiny. This effectively avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, confirming that the university's academic influence is earned through recognition by the global community rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a significant risk with a Z-score of 3.068, a situation that reflects a critical national dynamic where the country average is 3.408. Although the university's score is slightly lower, indicating a degree of attenuated alert compared to the national crisis, it remains a global outlier. 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 output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.965 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.938, reflecting statistical normality for its context. This indicates that the university's practices regarding authorship in large collaborations are in line with national standards. The data does not suggest any unusual patterns of author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships outside of disciplines where extensive author lists are legitimate and necessary. This alignment confirms that individual accountability and transparency in authorship are being maintained appropriately.
The institution's Z-score of 2.536 represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, where the country's average is a low-risk -0.391. This discrepancy indicates the university is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its peers. The wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated by its own intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile that is even more conservative than the national average of -0.484. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals in this area, aligning perfectly with a healthy national standard. The data confirms a sound balance between quantity and quality, suggesting that the university is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, 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 present at the national level (country Z-score: 0.189). While other institutions may be more exposed to academic endogamy, this university does not replicate those dynamics. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for avoiding conflicts of interest. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that its researchers are competing on the global stage rather than using internal 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of 0.399 indicates a moderate deviation from the national context, which shows a low-risk average of -0.207. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This value serves as an alert for the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over publication volume.
