State University of Makassar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

With a commendable overall integrity score of 0.845, the State University of Makassar demonstrates a solid foundation in research ethics, characterized by significant strengths in managing risks associated with multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals. These areas of very low risk indicate robust internal governance. However, this strong performance is critically undermined by a significant-risk Z-score in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which not only exceeds the national average but represents a major vulnerability. This specific issue, alongside minor vulnerabilities in institutional self-citation and hyper-authorship, requires immediate strategic attention. The university's academic strengths are evident in its national rankings, particularly in Arts and Humanities (11th), Psychology (22nd), Social Sciences (37th), and Computer Science (38th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of achieving "good university governance" and becoming a leading "research university," it is imperative to address the challenge of publication in low-quality channels. By strengthening due diligence in selecting dissemination venues, the university can protect its reputational capital, ensure its research contributes effectively to national development, and solidify its position as a center of academic excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.934, which is well below the national average of -0.674. This result indicates an environment of low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's very low rate suggests that its researchers correctly attribute their work, avoiding practices like "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed with transparency and integrity. This reflects a healthy and well-managed collaborative ecosystem.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.212, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in a national context that shows a medium-risk tendency (Z-score of 0.065). This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions points to a robust culture of integrity and successful pre-publication quality control. This performance indicates that the institution's supervision and methodological rigor are strong, preventing the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that can lead to a higher incidence of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.290, which, while indicating a medium risk level, is substantially lower than the national average of 1.821. This points to differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's contained rate suggests it is effectively avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates a healthy balance, ensuring that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being disproportionately inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 6.198 is a critical alert, positioning it as a global red flag by significantly exceeding the already high national average of 3.408. This indicator is the most severe vulnerability identified, pointing to a systemic issue in the selection of publication channels. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals suggests that a substantial volume of research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical and quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and indicates an urgent need to implement information literacy and due diligence policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.757, which is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938, although both fall within the low-risk category. This slight elevation signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this indicator serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines are transparent and reflect genuine intellectual contribution. Monitoring is recommended to distinguish necessary large-scale collaboration from any potential trend towards 'honorary' or inflated authorship, which can dilute individual accountability.

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

With a Z-score of -0.627, the institution demonstrates a more favorable profile than the national average of -0.391. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard, fostering strong internal leadership. A smaller gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is largely generated by its own structural capacity rather than being dependent on external partners. This is a sign of sustainable academic health, reflecting a strong ability to exercise intellectual leadership in its research endeavors.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, contrasting with a national average of -0.484. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, with a near-total absence of risk signals in this area. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score is a strong positive indicator that it fosters a research environment focused on quality over sheer quantity, effectively preventing potential integrity risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, marking a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.189). This excellent result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing its credibility and adherence to international standards.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.304 is lower than the national average of -0.207, indicating a prudent profile. This suggests that the institution manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' demonstrates a commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies rather than fragmenting data into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system by prioritizing substance over volume.