| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.605 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.155 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.346 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.674 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.050 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.425 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.570 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.193 | -0.207 |
The State University of Malang demonstrates a solid overall performance profile, marked by significant strengths in research governance but also shadowed by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. The institution excels in areas that reflect strong internal controls and a commitment to global standards, such as maintaining a very low rate of publication in its own journals and effectively managing authorship practices. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this operational rigor supports its prominent national standing in key thematic areas, including Psychology (Top 5), Social Sciences (Top 10), Business, Management and Accounting, and Arts and Humanities. However, this positive profile is contrasted by significant risk signals in institutional self-citation and a high rate of publication in discontinued journals. These practices directly challenge the university's mission to foster "scientific development" and "accountable, transparent governance," as they suggest a potential for insular validation and exposure to predatory publishing, which could undermine its contributions to social welfare. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, the university is advised to leverage its governance strengths to address these specific integrity gaps, thereby ensuring its research excellence is both robust and sustainable.
The institution's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.605) is slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.674), indicating an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation compared to the national baseline suggests a need for vigilance to ensure these practices do not evolve into strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." Monitoring this trend is a prudent step to maintain transparency in collaborative attributions.
The State University of Malang demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a low rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.155) that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.065). This suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. Retractions are complex events, but this favorable score indicates that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the types of recurring malpractice or methodological failures that might otherwise escalate this indicator.
A significant alert is raised by the institution's rate of self-citation (Z-score: 3.346), which markedly amplifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score: 1.821). This disproportionately high rate signals a critical risk of scientific isolation and the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Such a strong deviation suggests that the institution's academic influence may be artificially inflated by endogamous dynamics rather than recognized by the global community, a practice that undermines the pursuit of objective scientific advancement.
The university's rate of publication in discontinued journals represents a global red flag, with a Z-score of 3.674 that leads the metrics in a country already facing a critical situation (Z-score: 3.408). This indicator constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high score indicates that a significant portion of scientific output is being channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or substandard publishing practices.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile in managing authorship, with a rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.050) that is even lower than the national standard (Z-score: -0.938). This indicates that the university's processes are managed with greater rigor than its peers. The data suggests a healthy distinction between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of author list inflation, reinforcing a culture where individual accountability and transparency in contributions are valued.
With a Z-score of -0.425, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding its scientific leadership impact, performing slightly better than the national average (Z-score: -0.391). A low score in this indicator is positive, signaling that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. This reflects a healthy balance and suggests that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, which is a key factor for sustainable and autonomous research development.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national norm regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of 0.570 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.484. This suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated signal warrants a review, as it alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The State University of Malang demonstrates exemplary preventive isolation in its publication strategy, with a very low rate of output in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268). This stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.189). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy prevalent in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, mitigating conflicts of interest and enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
A moderate deviation is observed in the rate of redundant output, where the institution's Z-score of 0.193 indicates greater sensitivity to this risk compared to the national average (Z-score: -0.207). This value serves as an alert for the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer review system, highlighting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.
