| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.284 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.212 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.152 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.754 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.981 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.993 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.922 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.697 | -0.207 |
Universitas Negeri Jakarta presents a robust integrity profile, with an overall score of 1.084, indicating a performance that is generally solid but with specific, critical areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining low rates of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and output in its own journals, showcasing a strong foundation in research governance and a commitment to external validation. These strengths are particularly notable as they often outperform national trends. The university's academic leadership is evident in its national rankings within the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 17th in Indonesia), Psychology (18th), Business, Management and Accounting (20th), and Social Sciences (27th). However, this strong performance is undermined by significant risks, most critically a high rate of publication in discontinued journals, alongside medium-level risks in institutional self-citation and redundant output. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the core principles of academic excellence and social responsibility inherent to any higher education mission, as they risk compromising the reliability and global standing of the institution's research. To secure its reputation and build upon its clear thematic strengths, it is recommended that the university prioritize a comprehensive review of its publication strategies and quality assurance mechanisms.
The institution's Z-score of -1.284 is well below the national average of -0.674. This reflects a commendable absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the low-risk standard observed nationally, indicating that the university's affiliations are managed with high integrity. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to collaboration, free from indicators of such “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.212, the institution demonstrates a low risk of retracted publications, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This suggests a notable institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the wider environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. The university's low score indicates that its quality control mechanisms and methodological rigor are serving as a successful buffer against the trends seen elsewhere in the country.
The institution's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 2.152, which is higher than the national average of 1.821, placing both in a medium-risk category. This reveals that the university has a higher exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The university's elevated score warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that its academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 6.754 for output in discontinued journals, a figure that is dramatically higher than the already significant national average of 3.408. This score represents a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in this high-risk metric within a country already facing challenges. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a severe lapse in due diligence, indicating that a significant amount of research is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and signals an urgent, systemic need to enhance information literacy and quality control to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or substandard publication channels.
The institution's Z-score of -0.981 for hyper-authored output is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.938. This alignment indicates a state of normality, where the risk level is as expected for the context and shows no signs of deviation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high Z-score outside these fields can indicate author list inflation. The university's low and stable score suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and problematic 'honorary' authorship.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.993, indicating a negligible gap between its total impact and the impact of research under its leadership. This score is significantly better than the country's low-risk average of -0.391. This lack of a risk signal, which is even more pronounced than the national standard, points to a high degree of scientific autonomy and sustainability. A very wide positive gap can suggest that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. The university's very low score, however, is a strong indicator that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.922, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk related to hyperprolific authors, a result that is markedly better than the low-risk national average of -0.484. This low-profile consistency suggests a healthy research environment where quality is not being compromised for quantity. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's excellent score indicates a well-balanced approach to productivity, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, a very low-risk value that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. The university's decision to avoid this practice significantly enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, international validation standards.
The institution's Z-score of 0.697 for redundant output places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.207. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications usually indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The university's score serves as an alert to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, which distorts available scientific evidence and suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
