| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.202 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.441 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.175 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.847 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.726 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.476 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.182 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.207 |
Muhammadiyah University of Malang demonstrates a strong overall performance profile, marked by significant strengths in internal research governance but contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in its publication practices. The institution exhibits exceptional control over authorship integrity, impact sustainability, and academic endogamy, with four indicators registering at the 'very low' risk level. These foundational strengths are, however, overshadowed by significant risks in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which urgently require strategic intervention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Energy, where it ranks 9th nationally, as well as Business, Management and Accounting (23rd) and Psychology (27th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks directly conflict with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. A high rate of retractions and publication in predatory or low-quality journals undermines the credibility and societal value of its research. The university is encouraged to leverage its clear internal strengths to implement rigorous quality assurance and information literacy programs, thereby safeguarding its academic reputation and ensuring its research contributions are both impactful and trustworthy.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.202, while the national average is -0.674. Although both the university and the country operate within a low-risk context for this indicator, the institution's rate is slightly higher than the national standard. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation indicates that the institution shows slightly more activity in this area than its peers. It is advisable to monitor this trend to ensure that all affiliations are strategically sound and do not signal attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 1.441, the institution shows a significant risk level that is substantially higher than the country's medium-risk score of 0.065. This discrepancy indicates that the university is not only susceptible to a vulnerability present in the national system but actively amplifies it. A rate this far above the average is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This pattern suggests a deep vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing toward possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific reputation.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 2.175, placing it in the medium-risk category and slightly above the national average of 1.821. This reveals a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to these practices than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines; however, this elevated rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation. It warns of the risk of creating 'echo chambers' where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community, potentially leading to endogamous impact inflation.
The institution registers a Z-score of 3.847, a critical value that positions it as a leader in risk metrics within a country already highly compromised (national Z-score of 3.408). This situation constitutes a global red flag. Such a high proportion of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards is a critical alert regarding the due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent and systemic need for enhanced information literacy programs to prevent the waste of research resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The institution's Z-score of -0.726 is in the low-risk range, slightly higher than the national average of -0.938. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating that the university shows signals of this activity that warrant monitoring. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, a tendency toward this pattern outside those contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal serves as a reminder to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' attributions.
The institution demonstrates a key strength with a Z-score of -1.476, a 'very low' risk level that is significantly better than the country's low-risk score of -0.391. This low-profile consistency indicates an absence of risk and aligns well with national standards. A negative or low score here is highly positive, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated from within. This reflects a high degree of scientific maturity and sustainability, as the university's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.182, the institution is in the 'very low' risk category, performing better than the national low-risk average of -0.484. This demonstrates a healthy and well-managed research environment. The absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the university effectively avoids the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from extreme individual publication volumes. This positive result suggests a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics, free from risks like coercive or honorary authorship.
The university shows exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.268 ('very low' risk), starkly contrasting with the country's medium-risk Z-score of 0.189. This demonstrates a case of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. By not over-relying on its in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 places it in the 'very low' risk category, a stronger position than the country's low-risk average of -0.207. This low-profile consistency and absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of research quality. It suggests that the university's authors are not engaging in the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This focus on publishing complete and significant new knowledge, rather than fragmented data, strengthens the scientific record and reflects a commitment to meaningful contribution over mere volume.
