Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by significant strengths in research culture alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 1.058, the institution shows a higher-than-average exposure to integrity risks compared to global benchmarks. Key strengths are evident in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals, indicating a robust internal culture that prioritizes quality over quantity and avoids academic endogamy. These positive aspects are complemented by strong national rankings in several thematic areas, particularly in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 12th in Indonesia), Psychology (16th), and Chemistry (18th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, these achievements are overshadowed by a critical rate of publication in discontinued journals and a concerning gap in research impact leadership. These weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to "develop science, technology and art... that gives impact," as channeling research through low-quality venues and depending on external leadership for impact dilutes its contribution and contradicts the Islamic values of excellence and integrity. To align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its cultural strengths to implement a rigorous due diligence framework for publication and a strategic plan to foster internal research leadership, thereby ensuring its scientific development genuinely contributes to a "main society."

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.743, which is slightly lower than the national average of -0.674. This result suggests a prudent and well-managed approach to researcher affiliations. The university's profile indicates that its processes are even more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate demonstrates that the institution is effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thus maintaining clear and transparent academic accounting.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.587, the institution shows a higher rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.065. This indicates a greater exposure to the factors that lead to publication withdrawal. Retractions are complex events, and while some may signify responsible supervision in correcting honest errors, a rate significantly higher than its peers suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This value serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.378, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the national average of 1.821. This demonstrates remarkable institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of self-citation prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university effectively avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' By maintaining external validation, the institution ensures its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reinforcing the credibility of its research impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 5.641 is a critical value, significantly exceeding the already high national average of 3.408. This result is a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in a compromised national environment but is a leader in this high-risk practice. This high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a severe alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent and systemic need for information literacy and policy enforcement to prevent the wasting of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices that undermine its scientific mission.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.813, a low value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.938. This score points to an incipient vulnerability, where the institution shows minor signals of a practice that warrant review before escalating. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this subtle upward trend serves as a signal to proactively ensure that all authorship is earned and transparent. It is an opportunity to reinforce policies that distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby protecting individual accountability.

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

With a Z-score of 1.400, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.391, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, highlighting a need to foster and promote homegrown research excellence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.227, a very low value that is well below the national average of -0.484. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. This lack of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality. It indicates that the university's culture successfully avoids the risks associated with hyper-prolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, the institution's low reliance on them demonstrates a strong commitment to avoiding conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By prioritizing independent external peer review, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.659, the institution shows a very low rate of redundant output, performing better than the national average of -0.207. This finding reflects low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that is in line with the national standard. This indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. Instead, this positive result suggests a research culture that values the publication of coherent, significant studies, thereby contributing meaningfully to the scientific record and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.