State University of Medan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The State University of Medan demonstrates a complex integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational governance but also critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall score of 0.689, the institution excels in controlling authorship-related risks, showing very low rates of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and publication in its own journals. These strengths suggest robust internal policies that foster transparency and a focus on external validation. However, this positive performance is severely undermined by a significant-risk Z-score in publications within discontinued journals, which exceeds an already high national average. This, combined with medium-risk indicators for institutional self-citation and a dependency on external collaboration for impact, poses a direct threat to its mission of becoming a "superior teaching and research institution." The university's strong national rankings in key areas like Medicine (23rd), Physics and Astronomy (33rd), and Social Sciences (36th), as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a solid foundation of academic excellence. To protect and enhance this reputation, it is crucial to align its publication strategies with its mission, ensuring that its research output is channeled through high-integrity venues that reflect its ambition for national and international leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.153 is notably lower than the national average of -0.674. This result indicates an exemplary and consistent approach to authorship, with an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's very low score demonstrates a clear and transparent policy regarding author affiliations, effectively preventing practices like “affiliation shopping” and ensuring that institutional credit is assigned with integrity.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed across the country. A high rate of retractions can indicate that quality control mechanisms are failing prior to publication. The university’s strong performance in this area suggests its supervisory and review processes are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that leads to retractions and protecting its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 1.628 is slightly below the national average of 1.821, placing both in the medium-risk category. This reflects a pattern of differentiated management, where the university moderates a risk that appears to be common nationwide. While some self-citation is natural, high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' that inflate impact through endogamous dynamics rather than external validation. By keeping its rate below the national trend, the institution shows a greater capacity to control this behavior, though the medium-risk level still warrants attention to ensure its work receives sufficient external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.818, a critical value that significantly exceeds the already high national average of 3.408. This is a global red flag, indicating that the university leads this risk metric in a country already highly compromised. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it suggests that production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and indicates an urgent need to implement information literacy programs to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.716 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938, though both remain in the low-risk category. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, where the university shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are normal in "Big Science," their appearance in other fields can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's score, while low, suggests a minor trend that should be monitored to ensure a clear distinction between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

With a Z-score of 0.435, the institution presents a medium-risk profile, showing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.391. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. The score suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from its position in collaborations rather than its own intellectual leadership. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or strategic positioning in partnerships.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.484. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, with an almost complete absence of risk signals that aligns perfectly with a secure research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or work fragmentation. The university's very low score indicates a healthy academic culture where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained, ensuring the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, placing it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, allowing production to bypass independent peer review. By avoiding this practice, the institution ensures its research is validated through competitive external channels, thereby enhancing its global visibility and scientific credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.016, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.207. This slight elevation signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice that distorts scientific evidence. Although the current level is not alarming, the university's tendency is slightly more pronounced than its peers, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.