University of Mataram

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Mataram presents a profile of solid scientific integrity, marked by significant strengths in operational governance and notable opportunities for strategic enhancement. With an overall score of 0.290, the institution demonstrates robust control over key risk areas, particularly in preventing hyperprolific authorship and academic endogamy, where it significantly outperforms national trends. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These vulnerabilities contrast with the university's strong thematic positioning, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, in critical fields such as Energy, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science. To fully realize its mission of achieving "international quality standards" and generating "human resources who... have a global perspective," it is crucial to address the identified risks. The reliance on external leadership for impact and the channeling of research to non-standard journals could undermine the pursuit of "strong research" and accountability. By focusing on strengthening its intellectual leadership and refining its publication strategy, the University of Mataram can better align its operational practices with its ambitious vision, ensuring its research excellence is both sustainable and globally recognized.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.484 is within the low-risk range, though it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, and the current level is not alarming, this slight elevation compared to the national baseline indicates that monitoring is prudent. Ensuring that collaborative affiliations are strategically aligned and do not signal attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" will help maintain the university's strong integrity profile.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.108, the University of Mataram demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, showcasing institutional resilience, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This positive differential suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. Retractions can result from honest error correction, but a low rate like this points toward robust pre-publication supervision and a healthy integrity culture, indicating that potential methodological or ethical issues are likely being identified and resolved before they compromise the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.370 places it in the medium-risk category, but its performance reflects differentiated management when contrasted with the much higher national average of 1.821. This indicates the university is successfully moderating a practice that appears more common nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting deep expertise in specific research lines. However, by keeping its rate well below the national trend, the institution demonstrates a greater commitment to avoiding scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated by the broader external community and mitigating the risk of endogamously inflating its academic impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University of Mataram shows a Z-score of 2.164, a medium-risk signal that indicates a need for improved due diligence in publication strategy. However, this situation represents a relative containment of risk when viewed against the country's critical Z-score of 3.408. Although the institution operates with more order than the national average, a high proportion of output in such journals remains a critical alert. It suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.837, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in hyper-authorship, though this value is slightly above the national average of -0.938. This minor signal points to an incipient vulnerability that should be monitored. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" disciplines, this indicator serves as a reminder to ensure transparency and accountability in authorship attribution across all fields. Continued oversight can help distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and any potential for "honorary" authorship practices, thereby safeguarding the principle of meaningful contribution.

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

The institution's Z-score of 2.996 reveals a medium-risk gap, representing a moderate deviation from the national standard, where the average Z-score is -0.391. This disparity is a key strategic concern. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This finding invites critical reflection on whether its excellence metrics reflect genuine internal capacity or strategic positioning in partnerships that do not yet translate into sovereign scientific influence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University of Mataram exhibits a Z-score of -1.413, a very low-risk signal that demonstrates low-profile consistency with the national environment's low-risk average of -0.484. This excellent result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. While high output can signify leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the plausibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score strongly suggests that its research culture effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates in the very low-risk category, showcasing a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.189). This is a significant strength, indicating a clear commitment to external validation and global visibility. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The university's low score demonstrates that it avoids academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and does not use internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.411 is in the low-risk range and is notably lower than the country's average of -0.207. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its research output with more rigor than the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The university's lower-than-average score indicates a culture that values the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific evidence base through artificial volume increases.