| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.077 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.137 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.788 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.239 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.481 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.220 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.389 | -0.207 |
Maranatha Christian University presents a scientific integrity profile with notable strengths and specific, high-priority areas for strategic intervention, reflected in an overall score of 0.635. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in areas foundational to sustainable research, particularly in its capacity for intellectual leadership (very low gap between total and led impact) and its avoidance of academic endogamy (very low rate of output in institutional journals). These strengths are complemented by effective quality control, evidenced by lower-than-average rates of retractions and redundant publications. However, significant vulnerabilities exist, most critically in the high rate of publication in discontinued journals, alongside medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation and multiple affiliations. These challenges require attention as they could undermine the University's mission to "develop reliable scholars." The institution's academic strengths, demonstrated by its national rankings in fields such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (Top 30), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (Top 35), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 50) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a solid foundation of excellence. To fully align its practices with its mission, we recommend a focused effort on enhancing information literacy and publication channel selection criteria, thereby ensuring that its commendable research capacity is channeled through platforms that guarantee quality, visibility, and long-term impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.077, a notable deviation from the national average of -0.674. This difference suggests the University shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a need for review. It is crucial to verify that these affiliations represent substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that all declared contributions are transparent and verifiable.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution performs significantly better than the national average of 0.065, which falls into a medium-risk category. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks present in the country. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign, suggesting that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and that the institution fosters a responsible culture of integrity and methodological rigor, effectively preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retracted work.
The institution's Z-score of 2.137 is higher than the national average of 1.821, placing it in a position of high exposure to this particular risk, even within a country where the practice is common. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of potential scientific isolation or an academic 'echo chamber.' There is a risk that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community, a practice that can lead to endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 2.788 indicates a significant risk, making it a global outlier in this practice. Although this value is below the critical national average of 3.408, signaling a degree of attenuated alert, the situation remains urgent. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical warning regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an immediate need for information literacy training to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.239, the institution's risk is low but slightly more pronounced than the national average of -0.938. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While extensive author lists are standard in certain 'Big Science' fields, a rising trend outside these contexts can be an early indicator of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' attributions before the issue escalates.
The institution shows an exceptionally strong Z-score of -1.481, far exceeding the national average of -0.391. This result demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a secure national standard. A very low gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity. This reflects a sustainable research model where excellence is the result of genuine internal capabilities and the institution exercises clear intellectual leadership in its collaborative work.
The institution's Z-score of -0.220, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.484, signaling an incipient vulnerability. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to the need to monitor for risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk, in sharp contrast to the medium-risk dynamic observed nationally (0.189). This demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation, where the center actively avoids a risk prevalent in its environment. By not depending on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, which is essential for limiting the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' and for enhancing global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.389 is lower than the national average of -0.207, reflecting a prudent profile in its publication strategy. This suggests that the University manages its research dissemination with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of massive bibliographic overlap between publications is a healthy sign, indicating that the institution discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This approach prioritizes the publication of coherent studies with significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity metrics by dividing work into minimal publishable units.
