State University of Yogyakarta

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The State University of Yogyakarta demonstrates a strong overall performance profile with a score of 0.793, characterized by robust integrity in several key areas but offset by critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. The institution exhibits exemplary control over practices such as multiple affiliations, retracted output, and publication in its own journals, indicating a solid foundation in research governance. However, this positive outlook is seriously challenged by significant risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Discontinued Journals. These weaknesses stand in direct contrast to the university's prominent national standing in thematic areas like Social Sciences (ranked 2nd in Indonesia), Medicine (3rd), Psychology (4th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (10th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks directly threaten the core tenets of the university's mission, particularly its commitment to "good, clean and authoritative governance" and producing "independent and intellectual human beings." Practices that suggest academic endogamy or a lack of due diligence in publication channels undermine the credibility of its research and its claim to "competitive, creative and innovative" excellence. To fully align its operational integrity with its ambitious mission and prestigious academic reputation, it is recommended that the university prioritizes the development of clear policies and training programs aimed at mitigating these specific high-risk behaviors.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.886, positioning it in a very low-risk category and favorably below the national average of -0.674. This result demonstrates a commendable absence of risk signals that aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's low rate indicates a clear and transparent policy that effectively prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative framework.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a low-risk Z-score of -0.193, the institution contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national environment (Z-score 0.065). This disparity suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. A low rate of retractions indicates that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust, effectively preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that would signal a vulnerability in its integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 5.747 is a significant outlier, drastically amplifying the vulnerabilities already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 1.821. This disproportionately high rate is a critical warning of potential scientific isolation and the formation of 'echo chambers' where work may not receive sufficient external scrutiny. This practice creates a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence might be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 3.827 represents a global red flag, as it not only reflects but actively leads the risk metrics in a country already facing a critical situation (national Z-score of 3.408). This extremely high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied to selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant volume of scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.813 is in the low-risk category but reveals an incipient vulnerability, as it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938. This subtle difference suggests a trend that warrants proactive review before it escalates. While the university currently avoids widespread author list inflation, this minor elevation compared to the national baseline could be an early indicator of emerging 'honorary' or political authorship practices that dilute individual accountability and transparency, requiring monitoring to maintain integrity.

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

The institution displays a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.207 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.391. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor. The positive gap suggests that while overall impact is high, the impact of research led directly by the institution is comparatively low, signaling a potential sustainability risk. This finding invites critical reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, making its prestige dependent and exogenous.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -0.480, the institution's performance demonstrates statistical normality, aligning almost perfectly with the national average of -0.484. This indicates that the level of author productivity is as expected for its context and size. The data confirms the absence of extreme individual publication volumes that often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby successfully avoiding associated risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a strong preventive isolation from national risk trends, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.189. This indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific output undergoes independent external peer review. This strategy enhances global visibility and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.160 reflects statistical normality, as it is closely aligned with the national average of -0.207. This low-risk profile indicates that the degree of bibliographic overlap between its publications is within expected parameters. The data does not suggest any widespread practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This demonstrates a focus on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.