Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, with the vast majority of its risk indicators situated in the low or very low-risk categories. The institution's primary strengths lie in its clear independence from national risk trends, particularly evident in its very low rates of output in institutional journals and redundant publications, and its resiliently low rates of retractions and institutional self-citation compared to the higher national averages. These results point to effective internal governance and a commitment to external validation. The university's research excellence is further highlighted by its strong national positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, especially in key areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 14th in Indonesia), Environmental Science (23rd), and Psychology (24th). However, a critical vulnerability exists in the significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, which exceeds the already high national benchmark. This practice directly conflicts with the university's mission to operate within an "ethical and prestigious academic atmosphere," as it exposes institutional research to channels lacking quality and ethical oversight. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the university leverage its existing strengths in governance to implement targeted policies and training on responsible publication practices, thereby mitigating this key reputational risk and reinforcing its commitment to excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.540, slightly higher than the national average of -0.674, though both values fall within a low-risk range. This subtle difference suggests the emergence of a minor vulnerability. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, this incipient signal warrants a review to ensure that the observed pattern reflects genuine scientific partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping.” Proactive monitoring can help maintain the integrity of institutional representation in collaborative research.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retractions, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This positive divergence indicates a high degree of institutional resilience. The data suggests that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. This strong performance indicates that, unlike the national trend, the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that would lead to a higher retraction rate.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.234, a low-risk value that stands in stark contrast to the national medium-risk score of 1.821. This demonstrates effective institutional resilience against the risk of academic insularity. By maintaining a low rate of self-citation, the university shows that its research impact is validated by the broader scientific community, not just internally. This practice successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' and prevents the endogamous inflation of impact, confirming that the institution's academic influence is built on global recognition rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 3.969 is in the significant risk category and is notably higher than the already critical national average of 3.408, representing a global red flag. This result indicates that the institution is not only participating in a problematic national trend but is amplifying it. Such a high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent and systemic need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable resources into 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.352 is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.938, although both are within the low-risk threshold. This minor deviation points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting a slightly greater tendency toward publications with extensive author lists than its national peers. While not yet a concern, this signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable. It is important to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship, which can dilute individual responsibility.

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

With a Z-score of -0.184, which is higher than the national average of -0.391, the institution shows an incipient vulnerability from a statistical standpoint. However, the negative value itself is a sign of strength, indicating that the impact of research led by the institution is greater than its overall collaborative impact. This reflects strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. The "vulnerability" signal arises because its score is statistically closer to zero than the national average; should this trend continue and become positive, it could signal a dependency on external partners for impact. Currently, the data confirms that the institution's prestige is driven by its own structural capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.627, which is lower than the national average of -0.484. This indicates that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. The lower incidence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality. This profile effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record and prioritizing meaningful intellectual contributions over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review ensures its scientific production is validated against competitive global standards, thereby enhancing its international visibility and credibility rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows a near-total absence of redundant publications, a figure significantly lower than the national average of -0.207. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the institution's clean record aligns with a national environment that already has low risk. This excellent result indicates a strong institutional culture that values substantive contributions over artificially inflated publication counts. It confirms that researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units—thus upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.