| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.931 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.606 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.488 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.816 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.000 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.449 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.150 | -0.207 |
The State University of Surabaya presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.548 reflecting a combination of significant strengths and critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates commendable governance in areas such as its very low reliance on institutional journals and multiple affiliations, and effectively mitigates retraction risks below the national average. However, these positive aspects are overshadowed by significant risks in its publication and citation practices, particularly an alarming rate of institutional self-citation and a high volume of output in discontinued journals. These weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to "disseminate science... beneficial for... public welfares" and maintain "accountable... governance for a sustainable quality assurance." While the university holds strong national rankings in key thematic areas like Energy (7th), Medicine (8th), and Psychology (10th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the identified integrity risks could undermine the perceived value and long-term impact of this research. To fully align its scientific output with its mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its robust internal controls to urgently reform its publication strategy and foster a culture of broader, external scientific validation.
The institution shows an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.931), positioning it favorably even against the low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.674). This demonstrates a clear and consistent pattern of institutional credit attribution that aligns with national standards for transparency. The absence of risk signals in this area suggests that affiliations are managed with integrity, avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience regarding retracted publications, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.221, in contrast to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.065). This suggests that the institution's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. The university's ability to maintain a lower rate indicates a robust pre-publication review process that successfully prevents the systemic failures or lack of methodological rigor seen at the national level.
A significant red flag is raised by the university's rate of institutional self-citation, which at a Z-score of 2.606 is not only high in absolute terms but also 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 the institution's work may lack sufficient external scrutiny. This practice suggests that the institution's academic influence could be artificially inflated by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community, creating a risk of endogamous impact that requires immediate strategic intervention.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals represents a critical and urgent issue. With a Z-score of 3.488, it not only mirrors the country's highly compromised situation (Z-score: 3.408) but actually exceeds it, positioning the university as a leader in this high-risk practice. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests a systemic failure in information literacy, wasting valuable resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The university's rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.816) is within a low-risk band, but it shows a slight elevation compared to the national average (Z-score: -0.938). While the level is not yet alarming, this subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. It serves as an early signal to ensure that authorship lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions and to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship practices before they escalate into a more significant concern.
The institution exhibits a moderate deviation from the national norm regarding its scientific leadership impact, with a Z-score of 0.000 compared to the country's score of -0.391. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area, suggesting that the university's overall impact is more dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold a leadership role. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as its scientific prestige appears more exogenous than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are a result of its own core capacity or a dependency on partners who exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university's rate of hyperprolific authors (Z-score: -0.449) is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national context (Z-score: -0.484). The risk level is low and as expected for an institution of its size and scope. This indicates that authorship practices related to individual productivity are in sync with national standards, and there are no signs of systemic issues such as coercive authorship or the artificial inflation of publication counts that would warrant immediate concern.
The university demonstrates a clear strength in its publication strategy by avoiding the risks associated with institutional journals. Its very low Z-score of -0.268 shows a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.189). This indicates a healthy preference for external, independent peer review over in-house channels. By not relying on its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through competitive, global standards and enhancing its international visibility.
The institution's rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' presents an incipient vulnerability. While the Z-score of -0.150 remains in the low-risk category, it is slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.207), suggesting a trend that warrants monitoring. This subtle signal indicates a potential tendency to fragment studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity metrics. Although not yet a major issue, it is a practice that can distort the scientific record and should be reviewed to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.
