State University of Semarang

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The State University of Semarang presents a profile of notable strengths in internal governance alongside critical, systemic vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.568, the institution demonstrates exceptional control over authorship practices, institutional journal usage, and affiliation transparency, indicating a solid foundation of responsible conduct. However, this is contrasted by a significant-risk score in publications within discontinued journals and medium-risk levels for institutional self-citation and dependency on external leadership for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Physics and Astronomy, Psychology, Social Sciences, and Business, Management and Accounting, where it holds prominent national rankings. These areas of excellence are directly threatened by the identified integrity risks. The mission to achieve an "international reputation" and "disseminate science" is undermined when a significant portion of research is channeled through low-quality or predatory venues. To fully realize its vision, the university must leverage its clear strengths in governance to implement a rigorous publication and collaboration strategy, ensuring that its excellent research output is channeled through credible, high-impact venues that reflect its true academic caliber.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates a very low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.965), a signal of robust integrity that is even more pronounced than the low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.674). This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's affiliation policies are clear and transparent, successfully avoiding practices like "affiliation shopping" designed to strategically inflate institutional credit. The complete absence of this risk signal aligns with a healthy and well-regulated national standard, reflecting sound governance in researcher representation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a low rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.315), the university demonstrates institutional resilience, effectively mitigating the medium-level systemic risks observed across the country (Z-score: 0.065). This suggests that the institution's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning as a robust filter, proving more effective than the national standard. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, the university's ability to maintain a low rate indicates that its pre-publication review processes are successfully preventing the kind of systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity that may be more prevalent in the broader environment.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's rate of institutional self-citation is at a medium-risk level (Z-score: 1.784), a figure that closely mirrors the national trend (Z-score: 1.821). This alignment suggests the institution is part of a systemic pattern of citation behavior common throughout the country's academic landscape. While a degree of self-citation reflects the natural continuity of research, this elevated rate warns of a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This shared practice across the nation points to a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals represents a critical alert, with a Z-score of 4.470 that is not only in the significant-risk category but also substantially higher than the already compromised national average (Z-score: 3.408). This metric serves as a global red flag, indicating that the university is a leading contributor to this high-risk behavior within a country where the practice is widespread. A high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards suggests a systemic deficiency in due diligence when selecting publication venues. This exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and signals an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid channeling valuable resources into 'predatory' or low-impact practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The rate of hyper-authored output at the institution (Z-score: -0.930) is low and statistically normal, aligning almost perfectly with the national context (Z-score: -0.938). This indicates that the university's authorship patterns are typical for its environment and do not raise concerns. The data suggests that, outside of disciplines where massive collaboration is standard, the institution is not prone to author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.

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

The institution exhibits a medium-level risk in the gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: 0.263). This marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, which shows a low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.391), suggesting the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, implying that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being generated by its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics stem from genuine internal capabilities or from positioning within collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of hyperprolific authors (Z-score: -1.282), a strong indicator of academic health that surpasses the already low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.484). This low-profile consistency reflects a well-governed research environment. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or imbalances between quantity and quality, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268), the institution demonstrates a clear strength, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.189). This preventive isolation shows a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By not over-relying on in-house journals, the university successfully avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass independent external peer review. This practice reinforces the credibility of its scientific output by ensuring it is subject to standard competitive validation in the global academic arena.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution shows a near-total absence of signals related to redundant output, with a very low Z-score of -0.716. This healthy profile is significantly better than the low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.207). Such low-profile consistency indicates a research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication metrics. The data strongly suggests that the university is effectively preventing practices like 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence and respecting the resources of the peer review system.