Mulawarman University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Mulawarman University demonstrates a robust profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.295 that reflects a solid foundation of responsible research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its effective quality control mechanisms, evidenced by very low or low risk levels in Retracted Output, Hyperprolific Authorship, Redundant Output, and Output in Institutional Journals. These indicators suggest a culture that prioritizes quality and external validation over mere volume. However, two key areas require strategic attention: a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, which poses a reputational risk, and a medium rate of institutional self-citation, which mirrors a national trend. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research is most prominent nationally in areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; and Arts and Humanities. The identified risk of publishing in low-quality journals directly challenges the institutional mission to produce "high quality" research with "international standards." By strengthening its due diligence in selecting publication venues, Mulawarman University can better align its operational practices with its strategic vision, ensuring its research not only achieves high impact but also upholds the highest principles of academic accountability.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.152, which, while within a low-risk range, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation compared to the national context could be an early signal of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. It is advisable to review affiliation policies to ensure they transparently reflect genuine contributions and collaborations, preventing any potential escalation toward "affiliation shopping" practices.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.230, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This indicates a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. This low rate suggests that the university's quality control processes prior to publication are effective and that its integrity culture is robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to a high volume of retractions. This performance is a clear strength, reflecting responsible supervision and a commitment to a reliable scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.836, a medium-risk value that is nearly identical to the national average of 1.821. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, where the university's citation practices reflect a broader trend within the national research ecosystem. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but these disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This shared national characteristic warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university shows a Z-score of 2.960, a significant risk level that demands immediate attention. Although this value indicates a slightly better performance than the critical national average of 3.408, it still represents an attenuated alert. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical vulnerability regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.784, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in hyper-authorship, though its rate is slightly higher than the national benchmark of -0.938. This minor deviation signals an incipient vulnerability. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" contexts, this slight increase warrants observation to ensure it does not reflect a trend toward author list inflation in other fields. Monitoring this indicator can help distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential emergence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that dilute individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.761, a low-risk value that is notably better than the national average of -0.391. This prudent profile indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. A negative score is favorable, as it shows that the impact of research led by the institution is strong and not overly dependent on external partners. This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and stems from real internal capacity, reflecting a healthy and sustainable model where it exercises genuine intellectual leadership in its research endeavors.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, significantly below the low-risk national average of -0.484. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This indicator suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university’s environment appears to foster meaningful intellectual contribution over the simple inflation of publication metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low rate of publication in its own journals, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This finding signals a preventive isolation, whereby the center actively avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By not depending on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific production, rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution has a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a very low risk of redundant publications, a stronger performance than the low-risk national average of -0.207. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is in harmony with the national standard. The very low value in this indicator alerts to a commendable focus on substance over volume. It suggests that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units—but are instead prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.