Universitas Muslim Indonesia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universitas Muslim Indonesia presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity, alongside specific, critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 1.312, the institution demonstrates robust performance in key areas such as maintaining intellectual leadership, ensuring balanced author productivity, and prioritizing external peer review, which are foundational to scientific quality. The university's thematic strengths, as reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, are most prominent in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (39th in Indonesia), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (41st), Business, Management and Accounting (49th), and Social Sciences (50th). However, a significant-risk rating in publications within discontinued journals, coupled with medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations and redundant output, directly challenges the core tenets of its mission to foster "good character," "accountability," and "trust." These practices not only pose a reputational risk but also contradict the institutional goal of producing scholars who embody Islamic values of piety and integrity. To fully align its scientific practices with its distinguished mission, the university is advised to implement enhanced training and stricter governance regarding publication venue selection and authorship ethics.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.288 indicates a moderate deviation from the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.674), suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national standard warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified, and contribute substantively to the institution's collaborative ecosystem rather than just its metrics.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution demonstrates commendable resilience in its quality control processes, with a Z-score of -0.099 that stands in positive contrast to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.065). This suggests that the university's control mechanisms are effective at mitigating the systemic risks for retractions seen elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retracted output is a sign of responsible supervision and a healthy integrity culture, indicating that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning well and that potential errors are likely addressed before they escalate into systemic failures.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of 0.251, the institution shows differentiated management of a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 1.821). Although a medium-risk signal is present, the university's rate is substantially lower than the country average, indicating it successfully moderates this tendency. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by keeping it in check, the institution avoids the pitfalls of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates a healthier balance between building on internal research lines and seeking validation from the global scientific community, mitigating the risk of endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

This indicator represents a global red flag and the most urgent area for intervention. The institution's Z-score of 7.708 is exceptionally high, dramatically exceeding the already critical national average of 3.408. This positions the university as an outlier that leads risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It 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 and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile in authorship practices, with a Z-score of -1.005 that is slightly more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score: -0.938). This low-risk signal indicates that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potential author list inflation. The data suggests that authorship is generally awarded based on meaningful contributions, which upholds individual accountability and transparency and avoids the dilution of responsibility often associated with 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The institution exhibits low-profile consistency and a strong foundation of scientific autonomy, with a Z-score of -1.709, which is significantly healthier than the national average (Z-score: -0.391). The absence of risk signals here is a positive indicator of sustainability. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership. This reflects a mature research ecosystem where excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities, ensuring long-term stability and influence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows an absence of risk signals that aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.484). This indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality within its research community. The lack of hyperprolific authors suggests that the institutional culture prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over extreme publication volumes, thereby avoiding potential risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that can compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university demonstrates a strong example of preventive isolation, effectively avoiding a risk dynamic present in its national environment. Its Z-score of -0.268 contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk score of 0.189. This indicates a clear institutional commitment to using external and independent dissemination channels over in-house journals. This practice is crucial for avoiding conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, as it ensures that scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 1.258 that signals greater sensitivity to this risk compared to the low-risk country average (Z-score: -0.207). This elevated value alerts to the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system. A review of authorship guidelines and publication strategies is advisable to ensure that the focus remains on producing work with significant new knowledge.