| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.944 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.127 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.376 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
8.763 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.552 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.367 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.451 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.515 | -0.207 |
Mercu Buana University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 1.647 reflecting both commendable strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust governance in areas of authorship and collaboration, with very low-risk indicators for multiple affiliations, leadership impact, and use of institutional journals. However, this solid foundation is undermined by significant challenges in publication strategy, particularly an exceptionally high rate of output in discontinued journals and an alarming level of institutional self-citation. These practices stand in contrast to the university's strong national standing in key thematic areas, including its Top 15 rankings in Indonesia for Business, Management and Accounting; Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, based on SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks directly threaten the university's mission to achieve "academic excellence" and uphold "professional ethics," as channeling research through low-quality venues and inflating impact through internal citation loops are inconsistent with these core values. It is recommended that the university leverage this analysis to urgently reform its publication policies, ensuring its recognized thematic strengths are built upon a foundation of globally recognized, transparent, and ethically sound research practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.944 is well within the very low-risk category and is even more conservative than the national average of -0.674. This result demonstrates a commendable consistency with the national context, indicating that the university maintains exemplary control over its affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the complete absence of disproportionate rates at the institution suggests that it effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby ensuring clear and transparent authorship attribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.127 contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.065, which signals a medium risk level for the country. This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a risk that is more prevalent at the national level. Retractions are complex events, but the university's low rate indicates that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are robust, helping to prevent the kind of systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retracted papers and thus protecting its culture of integrity.
With a Z-score of 3.376, the institution significantly exceeds the national average of 1.821, thereby accentuating a vulnerability already present in the country's research ecosystem. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a critical risk of scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This high value warns 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 requires immediate review.
The institution's Z-score of 8.763 is exceptionally high, positioning it as a global red flag and a leader in this risk metric within a national context that is already highly compromised (country average of 3.408). This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals indicates that a significant volume of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy and policy intervention to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The institution's Z-score of -0.552, while still in the low-risk range, is notably higher than the national average of -0.938. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Although extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, an upward trend outside of these areas can indicate early signs of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This serves as a signal to proactively ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and distinguish necessary massive collaboration from 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.367, significantly lower than the national average of -0.391, indicating an exceptionally healthy and low-risk profile in this area. This strong performance aligns with a national environment that also shows low risk. A negative gap demonstrates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not dependent on external partners for impact. This reflects a robust internal capacity for intellectual leadership, where the impact of its research is driven by projects led by its own academics, ensuring long-term sustainability and scientific autonomy.
With a Z-score of -0.451, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authors is statistically normal and closely aligned with the national average of -0.484. This indicates that authorship productivity is well within expected parameters for its context and size. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating it from the moderate-risk dynamics observed at the national level (country average of 0.189). This preventive stance is commendable, as avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals helps circumvent potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that the university's scientific production is more likely to undergo independent external peer review, which is crucial for achieving global visibility and validating research through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 0.515 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits in the low-risk category at -0.207. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that may artificially inflate publication counts. A medium-risk value alerts to the potential for data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study might be divided into minimal publishable units. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
