| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.254 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.070 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.622 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.095 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.059 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.267 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.160 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.032 | -0.207 |
Lampung University presents a profile of notable strengths in research governance counterbalanced by significant vulnerabilities in its publication and citation strategies. With an overall integrity score of 0.438, the institution demonstrates exceptional control over authorship practices and research independence, fostering an environment of genuine scientific capacity. This is particularly evident in its leadership within key thematic areas, as highlighted by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks among the top national institutions in fields such as Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (7th in Indonesia) and Chemistry (7th in Indonesia). However, critical risks in institutional self-citation and the use of discontinued journals directly challenge its mission to deliver "good quality" research and maintain "good university governance." These practices suggest a degree of academic insularity that could undermine the institution's goal of developing robust cooperation and achieving externally validated excellence. To fully realize its potential, the university should leverage its foundational integrity to implement targeted strategies that enhance the quality and transparency of its dissemination channels, ensuring its operational practices fully align with its stated mission.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.254, positioning it in a very low-risk category and notably below the national average of -0.674. This result indicates a robust and transparent approach to academic affiliations, demonstrating that the institution does not replicate the low-level risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s exceptionally low rate suggests strong governance that effectively prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and honest attribution.
With a Z-score of 0.070, the institution's rate of retractions is at a medium-risk level, closely mirroring the national average of 0.065. This alignment suggests that the university is experiencing a systemic pattern of publication integrity challenges that are common across the national research landscape. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a sustained medium level indicates that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing with some regularity. This shared vulnerability points to a need for enhanced methodological rigor and oversight to prevent recurring malpractice and strengthen the institution's integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 2.622, a significant-risk value that sharply accentuates the vulnerabilities present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 1.821. This high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, where the institution may be operating within an 'echo chamber' that validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. While some self-citation reflects ongoing research, this disproportionately high value warns of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, a critical risk that requires immediate strategic review.
The university shows a Z-score of 3.095, placing it in the significant-risk category, a critical situation shared with the national average of 3.408. Although the institution's score is slightly lower, indicating a degree of attenuated alert compared to the country's average, it remains a global outlier. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -1.059, the institution maintains a prudent, low-risk profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard (-0.938). This demonstrates effective management of authorship practices, ensuring they remain transparent and accountable. By avoiding the patterns of author list inflation seen in some contexts, the university successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship, thereby safeguarding the principle of individual accountability in its research output.
The institution's Z-score of -1.267 is in the very low-risk range, a figure that stands in positive contrast to the country's low-risk average of -0.391. This excellent result signals the absence of dependency on external partners for impact, demonstrating strong internal research capacity. A low gap indicates that the scientific prestige of the university is structural and endogenous, stemming from research where its own members exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model of excellence built on genuine internal capabilities rather than strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The university's Z-score of -1.160 places it in the very low-risk category, far below the national low-risk average of -0.484. This absence of risk signals, even in an environment where some signals exist, points to a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It suggests that the institution's culture does not encourage practices like coercive authorship or "salami slicing" to inflate publication counts. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the university effectively mitigates the risks of compromising methodological rigor and ensures that authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low risk, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.189). This preventive stance demonstrates a clear commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and conflicts of interest. By not depending on its own journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent, external peer review. This practice not only enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research but also prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 1.032 indicates a medium level of risk, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.207. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that artificially inflate productivity. A medium score alerts to the potential for data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, and warrants a review of institutional publication guidelines.
