Widya Mandala Catholic University of Surabaya

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Widya Mandala Catholic University of Surabaya demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research quality control and a clear insulation from some of the more pressing systemic risks observed at the national level. The institution's overall score of 0.278 reflects a solid foundation, particularly evident in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output and publications in its own journals, signaling robust pre-publication review and a commitment to external validation. However, this profile is contrasted by medium-risk indicators related to authorship and affiliation patterns, such as the rates of multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authors, which deviate from the national baseline and warrant strategic attention. These areas of vulnerability, if left unaddressed, could subtly undermine the institution's core academic mission. The university's research excellence is prominently showcased in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, with strong national standings in key thematic areas including Chemistry (ranked 5th in Indonesia), Environmental Science (22nd), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (39th). To ensure these achievements are sustainable and perceived as fully legitimate, it is crucial to align its operational practices with its demonstrated scientific strengths. By proactively addressing the identified vulnerabilities in authorship and collaboration ethics, the university can fortify its reputation for excellence and ensure its contributions continue to meet the highest standards of scientific and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.517 in this indicator, a figure that shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.674. This suggests that the university exhibits a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a closer look. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" rather than reflecting substantive, collaborative research. A review of institutional policies is recommended to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to meaningful scientific contributions and partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution demonstrates an exceptional performance, especially when compared to the national average of 0.065, which falls into a medium-risk category. This result indicates a successful preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, but a rate significantly below the norm, as seen here, strongly suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This is a clear strength, reflecting a mature culture of integrity and methodological rigor that prevents systemic failures.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.233, positioning it favorably against the national Z-score of 1.821. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy that are more prevalent at the country level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, by maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its work is validated by the broader external community, reinforcing the global recognition of its academic influence rather than relying on internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.307 indicates a medium level of risk, yet it demonstrates relative containment when contextualized against the critical national average of 3.408. Although some risk signals are present, the university operates with more order and diligence than the national trend. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the selection of dissemination channels, as it may expose the institution to reputational damage from 'predatory' or low-quality practices. While the university is managing this risk better than its peers, this indicator suggests a continued need for enhanced information literacy and guidance for researchers to ensure resources are channeled toward reputable and sustainable academic venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.057, the institution displays a prudent profile that is slightly more rigorous than the national standard (-0.938). This indicates that the university manages its authorship practices with a higher degree of control than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, an indicator in the low-risk range suggests the institution is effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This controlled approach reinforces individual accountability and transparency in research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.468 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.391, indicating a greater sensitivity to risks related to impact dependency. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university shows a Z-score of 0.843 in this area, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.484. This suggests the institution is more exposed to the risk factors associated with extreme publication volumes than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It highlights a need to review internal incentive structures to ensure they prioritize the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.189. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, indicating that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the institution effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice strengthens the credibility of its research, enhances its global visibility, and confirms its commitment to validation through standard, competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.304, the institution exhibits a prudent profile, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard (-0.207). This lower value indicates a reduced risk of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice, which involves dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, distorts the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. The university's controlled performance in this area suggests that its researchers are encouraged to prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over artificially increasing their output volume.