| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.826 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.099 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.623 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.296 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.080 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.074 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.252 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
1.176 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.048 | -0.207 |
Sebelas Maret University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.673 reflecting both commendable strengths and significant areas for strategic improvement. The institution exhibits robust control in key areas, such as a low rate of retracted output and prudent management of multiple affiliations, outperforming national averages and suggesting effective internal governance. However, this is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, and medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation, output in its own journals, and redundant publications. These challenges could potentially undermine the university's mission to foster "new discoveries and inventions," as they risk compromising the global visibility and external validation of its research. The university's strong academic standing, evidenced by its top national rankings in fields like Physics and Astronomy, Engineering, Economics, and Social Sciences, provides a solid foundation. To fully align its operational practices with its mission of excellence and community empowerment, a focused effort to enhance publication strategies and reinforce the principles of external peer review is recommended, thereby ensuring its research capacity translates into sustainable, high-integrity global impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.826, which is lower than the national average of -0.674. This result suggests a prudent and well-managed approach to researcher affiliations. The university's performance indicates more rigorous processes than the national standard, effectively minimizing the risks associated with this indicator. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's controlled rate demonstrates a low probability of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a healthy and transparent research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -0.099, the institution shows a low risk level, in contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.065. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk observed at the national level. A low rate of retractions suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This performance points to a strong integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to higher retraction rates, reinforcing the responsible conduct of research.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.623, a medium-risk value that is slightly below the national average of 1.821. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the university moderates a risk that appears to be common across the country. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the medium-risk score still warrants attention. It suggests a potential tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally. The university's ability to keep this rate below the national average is positive, but continued monitoring is needed to avoid the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensure its academic influence is validated by the broader global community.
The institution registers a Z-score of 3.296, a significant risk level that is, however, slightly lower than the critical national average of 3.408. This situation represents an attenuated alert; while the university is a global outlier in this practice, it demonstrates marginally more control than the national trend. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical issue, indicating that a significant portion of research is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy and due diligence among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality dissemination channels.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.080, a low-risk value that is more conservative than the national average of -0.938. This indicates a prudent profile, suggesting the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. The data does not suggest a widespread issue with author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This controlled approach helps maintain transparency and ensures that authorship is more likely to reflect genuine intellectual contribution rather than 'honorary' or political practices, which is a sign of a healthy research culture.
The institution's Z-score of 0.074 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.391. This indicates that the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. A positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners, as its global impact is significantly higher than the impact of research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
With a Z-score of -0.252, the institution remains in the low-risk category but is slightly higher than the national average of -0.484. This signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While high productivity is not inherently negative, even a low-level signal in this area can point to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. The university should remain vigilant for dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, ensuring that high output is a reflection of genuine leadership and not a symptom of underlying issues.
The institution has a Z-score of 1.176, a medium-risk value that indicates high exposure compared to the national average of 0.189. The university is significantly more prone to publishing in its own journals than its peers, which raises potential conflicts of interest as the institution acts as both judge and party. This practice warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent external peer review. This can limit the global visibility and validation of its scientific production and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive assessment.
The institution's Z-score of 0.048 indicates a medium risk, a moderate deviation from the national low-risk average of -0.207. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A medium-risk value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over sheer publication volume.
