Malikussaleh University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Malikussaleh University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score (1.133) indicating performance below the global average. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in areas of fundamental research ethics, such as a complete absence of hyperprolific authorship and a commendable commitment to external peer review over institutional journals. However, these positive aspects are critically overshadowed by two significant vulnerabilities: an exceptionally high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a severe incidence of redundant publications (salami slicing). These practices directly threaten the university's reputation and the validity of its scientific contributions. Despite these integrity challenges, the institution shows considerable research potential, with strong national rankings in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Earth and Planetary Sciences, Environmental Science, Physics and Astronomy, and Energy. While the university's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks are fundamentally at odds with any mission predicated on academic excellence and social responsibility. To secure its long-term strategic vision, it is imperative that the university leverages its areas of good governance to implement urgent, targeted interventions that address its critical vulnerabilities in publication strategy and research dissemination.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.202, which represents a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.674. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to author affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at the institution compared to the national context could signal a need to review affiliation policies. It is important to ensure that these patterns reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that appears less prevalent across the country.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.287, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience against a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 0.065). This favorable result suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of retraction seen elsewhere in the country. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, the university's significantly lower rate indicates that its quality control and peer review processes prior to publication are likely more robust, preventing the types of recurring malpractice or methodological flaws that may be affecting the national system.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university demonstrates differentiated management of this risk, with a Z-score of 0.320, which is considerably lower than the national average of 1.821. This indicates that the institution successfully moderates a practice that appears to be common within the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the country's higher score points to a broader risk of 'echo chambers'. In contrast, the university's lower rate suggests a healthier integration with the global scientific community, with less risk of endogamous impact inflation and a greater reliance on external scrutiny for validation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 5.985 is a global red flag, indicating a critical vulnerability that significantly exceeds the already high-risk national average of 3.408. This result shows that the university not only participates in but leads a problematic national trend. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This extremely high score indicates that a substantial portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy training to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.870 is well within the low-risk range, though it signals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.938. While the overall risk is minimal, this slight upward signal relative to the national baseline warrants a proactive review. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. A preventative check of authorship policies would be a prudent step to ensure that all collaborations are transparent and that honorary or political authorship practices do not emerge.

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

The university's Z-score of 0.803 marks a moderate deviation from the national score of -0.391, indicating a greater sensitivity to this particular risk. The positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reliance on external partners for impact signals a potential sustainability risk, as it raises questions about whether the university's excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships. This pattern diverges from the national trend, where institutions appear to generate more impact from research they lead themselves.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, as the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.484). This is a significant strength, indicating a healthy and balanced research culture. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent score here shows a clear prioritization of quality over quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 reflects a state of preventive isolation from a risk dynamic present in its environment (national Z-score: 0.189). This result is highly positive, showing that the university does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy observed at a national level. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. By avoiding this practice, the university demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research and ensures its work is validated through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score of 3.158 represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.207). This atypical and high-risk activity is a critical anomaly that requires an urgent and deep integrity assessment. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Such a high score, particularly in a country where this is not a common issue, suggests a potential systemic problem that distorts the scientific evidence base and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.