| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.847 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
4.118 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.161 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.568 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.878 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.700 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.898 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.918 | -0.207 |
Lambung Mangkurat University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 2.381. The institution demonstrates commendable strengths and robust control in areas related to authorship ethics, showing very low risk in hyperprolificacy, redundant publication, and academic endogamy. These positive aspects, however, are overshadowed by significant and urgent vulnerabilities in its publication practices. Critical risk levels in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and especially Output in Discontinued Journals signal systemic challenges that require immediate strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Physics and Astronomy, Engineering, and Psychology. The identified integrity risks directly threaten the university's mission to achieve "high-quality" research, "good governance," and "international competitiveness." A high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a significant number of retractions fundamentally undermine the pursuit of quality and global recognition. To fully realize its mission and leverage its thematic strengths, the university must urgently address these publication strategy and quality control gaps, transforming these critical weaknesses into pillars of institutional integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.847 is slightly lower than the national average of -0.674, indicating a prudent and well-managed approach to researcher affiliations. This suggests that the university's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's controlled rate demonstrates a low risk of strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, reflecting a healthy and transparent collaborative ecosystem.
With a Z-score of 4.118, the institution shows a critical deviation from the national average of 0.065. This suggests the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is significantly amplifying vulnerabilities present in the research system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this high is a serious alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This Z-score points to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation and academic credibility.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 3.161, a figure that significantly exceeds the national average of 1.821. This indicates an accentuation of a risk already present in the national environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a high risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, a practice that could hinder its long-term international standing.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 6.568, which is alarmingly high and surpasses the already critical national average of 3.408. This positions the university as a global red flag, leading risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the university's 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 urgent need for information literacy programs to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.878 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938, both of which are in the low-risk range. This minor difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some 'Big Science' fields, any unusual increase outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal, though currently low, serves as a reminder to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -0.700, which is lower than the national average of -0.391, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its collaborative impact. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. The controlled gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a healthy balance, indicating that its excellence metrics are likely a result of genuine internal capacity and sustainable research leadership.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.898, indicating a very low-risk environment that is even more controlled than the national average of -0.484. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard, showcasing strong governance over authorship contributions. The university effectively mitigates the risks associated with extreme individual publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' thereby ensuring a healthy balance between quantity and quality and upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, starkly contrasting with the national medium-risk average of 0.189. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids replicating the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. By not depending excessively on its own journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production largely undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.918, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk of redundant publication, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.207. This absence of risk signals is consistent with national standards and points to a culture that values substantive contributions over volume. This indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—thereby contributing to a healthier and more meaningful scientific record.
