| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.884 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.024 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.745 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.516 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.244 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.933 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.110 | -0.207 |
Universitas Multimedia Nusantara presents a profile of notable scientific integrity, marked by significant strengths in operational governance but punctuated by a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.412, the institution demonstrates exceptional control over risks related to authorship practices, institutional independence, and research leadership. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a significant-risk Z-score in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and a medium-risk level in Institutional Self-Citation. The institution's academic strengths, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Business, Management and Accounting, Computer Science, and Social Sciences, provide a robust platform for impact. Yet, the identified risk of publishing in low-quality channels directly challenges its mission to "improve the quality of Indonesia’s human resources," as it exposes researchers to predatory practices and undermines the credibility of its contributions. To fully align its practices with its mission of excellence and social welfare, the university should leverage its clear strengths in research culture to implement targeted educational and policy interventions, particularly focused on responsible journal selection, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its research genuinely contributes to national advancement.
The institution exhibits an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -0.884, which is well below the national average of -0.674. This result indicates a clear and consistent policy regarding institutional representation, aligning with the low-risk standard observed nationally. The absence of signals related to affiliation misuse suggests that the university's collaborations are transparent and organically structured. This reinforces the legitimacy of its partnerships and researcher mobility, showing no evidence of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” which strengthens its reputational integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.024, the institution demonstrates effective control over publication quality, contrasting with the higher national average of 0.065, which falls into a medium-risk category. This suggests the presence of robust institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent in the national environment. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, the institution's low rate indicates that its quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher score might suggest.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.745, slightly below the national average of 1.821. This demonstrates a degree of differentiated management, where the university moderates a risk that is common throughout the country's academic system. Although the rate is in the medium-risk range, its position below the national benchmark is a positive sign. Nevertheless, this level of self-citation can signal a potential 'echo chamber,' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. It serves as a warning about the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that a portion of the institution's academic influence may be driven by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global community.
This indicator presents a critical alert, with the institution's Z-score of 3.516 surpassing the already high national average of 3.408. This result positions the university as a global red flag, as it not only participates in but amplifies a highly compromised national trend. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and due diligence policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution shows a very low risk in this area, with a Z-score of -1.244, significantly lower than the national average of -0.938. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This result indicates that authorship practices at the institution are transparent and accountable. There is no evidence of the author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships that can dilute individual responsibility, confirming that collaborative work is managed with integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.933, far below the national average of -0.391, the institution displays outstanding performance in research autonomy. This low-profile consistency with the national standard indicates that the impact of its research is driven by strong internal capacity. The result confirms that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not dependent on external partners for validation. This reflects a healthy research ecosystem where excellence metrics are a direct result of intellectual leadership exercised by its own researchers.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, placing it in a much better position than the national average of -0.484. This reflects a consistent and well-managed research environment where productivity norms are balanced and sustainable. The data show no signs of extreme individual publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This absence of risk signals suggests that the institution effectively discourages practices like coercive authorship or metric-driven publication strategies, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer quantity.
The university demonstrates remarkable preventive isolation in this domain, with a Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the national average of 0.189, which indicates a medium-risk trend. This shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, choosing instead to prioritize external validation. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, it sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, enhancing its global visibility and protecting it from any perception that internal channels are used as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.110, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.207. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While the overall risk is low, the data suggest the institution is slightly more prone than its national peers to publishing works with significant bibliographic overlap. This could be an early indicator of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice where studies are divided into minimal units to inflate productivity, which can distort scientific evidence and overburden the review system.
