| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.354 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.068 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.031 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.285 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.086 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.746 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.165 | -0.207 |
The Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.749, characterized by significant strengths in maintaining low-risk profiles for hyper-authorship, leadership impact, and publication in institutional journals. However, this profile is critically undermined by two key vulnerabilities: a significant-risk Z-score in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and a medium-risk score in Institutional Self-Citation. These issues require strategic attention as they contrast with the institution's notable academic strengths, evidenced by its high national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 13), Business, Management and Accounting (Top 15), and Energy (Top 17). The identified risks, especially the reliance on low-quality publication channels, directly challenge the university's mission to create "professional and highly capable" graduates and to "reinforce the values of humanity and civilization." Addressing these integrity gaps is crucial to ensure that the institution's operational practices fully align with its aspirational goals of excellence and social responsibility. A focused intervention on publication strategy and quality assurance will safeguard its reputation and enhance the global impact of its strong thematic areas.
The institution's Z-score of -0.354 for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, while still in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward trend compared to the national context could signal early-stage attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping” that should be monitored to prevent escalation.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience regarding retracted publications, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.324, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This indicates that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed across the country. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing; however, the university's low score points to a robust integrity culture and responsible supervision, successfully preventing recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere.
With a Z-score of 2.068, the institution shows a higher exposure to the risks of institutional self-citation compared to the national average of 1.821. This indicates that the university is more prone than its national peers to developing scientific 'echo chambers.' Disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 5.031 for output in discontinued journals represents a global red flag, significantly exceeding the already critical national average of 3.408. This result indicates that the university is a leader in risk metrics within a country already highly compromised in this area. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university maintains a very low-risk profile in hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -1.285, which is well below the low-risk national average of -0.938. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This score suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
With a Z-score of -1.086, the institution shows a very low-risk gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role, performing better than the national average of -0.391. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy and sustainable research ecosystem. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The university's excellent score suggests that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, not just strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.746 that is comfortably below the national average of -0.484. This suggests that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's lower score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The university demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends regarding publication in institutional journals. Its very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 stands in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189, showing that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. The university's score indicates that its scientific production is not bypassing independent external peer review, thereby ensuring global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
The institution's rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.165, is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.207. The risk level is as expected for its context and size. While massive bibliographic overlap can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity—the university's score does not suggest an abnormal pattern. This indicates that, on average, its researchers are not distorting the scientific evidence or overburdening the review system by prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.
