| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.314 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.990 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.224 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.191 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.751 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.257 | -0.207 |
Parahyangan Catholic University demonstrates a balanced integrity profile with an overall score of 0.302, characterized by significant strengths in authorship practices and institutional governance, alongside specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. The institution excels with very low risk signals in Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating a healthy and transparent research culture. However, this is contrasted by a significant risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and medium-level alerts for Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output. These results are particularly relevant given the University's strong national standing in key thematic areas such as Business, Management and Accounting, Engineering, and Environmental Science, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks, especially the reliance on low-quality publication channels, directly challenge the institutional mission's commitment to "affection for the truth" and "academic superiority." To fully align its operational practices with its guiding principles, the University is advised to implement targeted strategies focusing on enhancing information literacy for journal selection and reinforcing ethical publication standards.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.314, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This suggests an incipient vulnerability where the University shows early signals of a risk that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation compared to the national norm indicates a trend that warrants observation. It is advisable to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive collaborations to prevent any potential for strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at inflating institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.362, the University shows a commendably low rate of retracted publications, particularly when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the wider national environment. This low rate indicates that pre-publication supervision is robust and that the institution's integrity culture successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to a high volume of retractions.
The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.990, a medium-risk value that is nevertheless considerably lower than the national average of 1.821. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, by maintaining a rate below the national trend, the University appears to be actively avoiding the "echo chambers" that can lead to endogamous impact inflation, striking a better balance between internal validation and external scrutiny than its national peers.
The institution's Z-score of 3.224 for output in discontinued journals is a significant risk, though it remains slightly below the critical national average of 3.408. This constitutes an attenuated alert; while the University is a global outlier in this metric, it shows marginally more control than the country as a whole. This high proportion of publications in channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards is a critical vulnerability. It exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to improve due diligence and information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable resources into 'predatory' or low-quality practices that undermine scientific integrity.
The University shows a Z-score of -1.191, a very low-risk signal that is even more favorable than the low-risk national average of -0.938. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This indicates that authorship practices at the institution are well-governed, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and problematic author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency.
The institution's Z-score for the impact gap is -0.751, a low value that is notably better than the national average of -0.391. This prudent profile suggests the University manages its research collaborations with more rigor than the national standard. A low gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is largely derived from its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This is a sign of sustainable and authentic research excellence, where impact metrics reflect genuine internal capabilities.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the University has a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, a figure significantly better than the low-risk national average of -0.484. This finding points to a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses the already low national standard. It suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, effectively avoiding the dynamics of coercive authorship or metric-driven publication strategies that can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a very low rate of publication in its own journals, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the University does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By prioritizing external, independent peer review over in-house channels, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest, enhances the global visibility of its research, and ensures its scientific output is validated through standard competitive processes.
The University's rate of redundant output shows a Z-score of 0.257 (medium risk), which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.207. This indicates that the institution is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its national peers. The data suggests a potential tendency toward "salami slicing," where coherent studies may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburdens the review system, warranting a review of authorship and publication guidelines to encourage the dissemination of more significant, consolidated knowledge.
