| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.101 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.061 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.355 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
15.739 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.059 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.528 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.747 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.481 | -0.207 |
The Nahdlatul Ulama University of Surabaya presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 3.085 indicating areas of significant vulnerability alongside notable strengths. The institution demonstrates robust control in key areas, particularly in its minimal rates of output in institutional journals and redundant publications, suggesting a strong foundation in editorial independence and research originality. However, this is offset by critical alerts, most notably an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a concerning gap in research impact, which signal potential threats to its long-term scientific sustainability and reputation. These findings are particularly relevant given the University's strong national standing in thematic areas such as Environmental Science, Mathematics, and Social Sciences, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks, especially those related to publication quality and intellectual leadership, directly challenge the institutional mission to foster "professional management," "integrity," and "innovative" research. To fully realize its vision of developing "professional human resources" with "Islamic identity," it is imperative to address these integrity gaps, ensuring that its commendable thematic performance is built upon a foundation of unquestionable scientific rigor and ethical practice.
The University's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.101) shows an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average (Z-score: -0.674). Although the overall risk level is low, the institution displays slightly more activity in this area than its national peers, warranting a review. Disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This subtle deviation suggests a need for proactive monitoring to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect genuine collaborative contributions, rather than becoming a mechanism for “affiliation shopping.”
The institution demonstrates notable resilience regarding retracted publications, with a Z-score of -0.061, which is significantly lower than the national Z-score of 0.065. This suggests that the University's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions indicates that quality control processes prior to publication are likely robust. This performance reflects a healthy integrity culture, where potential methodological flaws or errors are addressed before they escalate, safeguarding the institution's scientific record.
With a Z-score of 1.355 for institutional self-citation, the University shows a more moderate risk profile than the national average (Z-score: 1.821). This indicates a differentiated management approach that successfully moderates a practice that appears more common at the country level. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The University's ability to keep this indicator below the national trend suggests a healthier balance between building on internal research lines and seeking external validation, thereby avoiding the most severe risks of endogamous impact inflation.
The University's rate of publication in discontinued journals represents a global red flag, with an exceptionally high Z-score of 15.739 that far exceeds the already critical national average (Z-score: 3.408). This result positions the institution as a leader in risk metrics within a highly compromised national environment. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the University's 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 and policy enforcement to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The University maintains a prudent profile in its rate of hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -1.059 that is below the national standard (Z-score: -0.938). This suggests that the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than its peers. A low value in this indicator is a positive sign, indicating that the University is effectively avoiding the risks of author list inflation and the dilution of individual accountability. This reflects a commitment to transparent and meaningful contribution, steering clear of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
A moderate deviation is observed in the gap between the institution's overall impact and the impact of its researcher-led output, with a Z-score of 1.528, which contrasts sharply with the national average (Z-score: -0.391). This indicates the University is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a crucial point for long-term strategic planning.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.747, which is comfortably below the national average (Z-score: -0.484). This indicates that the University's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of hyperprolific authors is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between quantity and quality. It suggests the institution is effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The University demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation from national trends regarding publication in its own journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a national context where this is a medium-risk practice (Z-score: 0.189). This indicates the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the University effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels.
The institution shows low-profile consistency in its rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.481 against a national Z-score of -0.207. The complete absence of risk signals in this area is aligned with the low-risk national standard, and even improves upon it. This very low value indicates that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing', is not a concern. This reflects a commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, which strengthens the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.
