| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.602 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.774 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.260 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.732 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.863 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.410 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.559 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.818 | -0.207 |
With a commendable overall integrity score of 0.835, Padjadjaran University demonstrates a solid foundation in responsible research practices, marked by significant strengths in operational governance. The institution exhibits exemplary control over academic endogamy, with exceptionally low rates of output in its own journals and minimal evidence of redundant publications ('salami slicing'), positioning it as a leader in these areas within the national context. These strengths are a testament to a culture that values robust, externally validated research. This operational rigor provides a strong base for its notable academic achievements, particularly in fields such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 2nd in Indonesia), Dentistry (3rd), and Mathematics (3rd), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile of excellence is critically threatened by a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, a practice that directly undermines the university's mission to foster global engagement and strengthen international partnerships. To fully align its scientific output with its strategic vision, the university must urgently address this vulnerability, ensuring that its powerful research capacity is channeled through reputable venues that enhance, rather than diminish, its international standing.
The university's Z-score of -0.602 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674, with both values situated in a low-risk context. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation indicates that the university's collaboration patterns show slightly more risk signals than the national norm. It serves as a prompt for a proactive review to ensure all affiliations are strategically sound and do not trend towards "affiliation shopping" practices designed to artificially inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of 0.774, the university's rate of retractions is significantly higher than the national average of 0.065, indicating a high exposure to this risk factor. This disparity suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be less effective than those of its national peers. A rate this far above the country's baseline is a critical alert; it points beyond isolated, honest corrections to a potential systemic vulnerability in the institutional integrity culture. This finding signals an urgent need for management to conduct a qualitative verification to determine if recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor is contributing to this elevated rate.
The university's Z-score for self-citation is 1.260, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, is notably lower than the national average of 1.821. This suggests a differentiated and more effective management of this indicator compared to the national trend. While a certain degree of self-citation is natural, the university appears to be successfully moderating this practice, thereby reducing the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This controlled approach ensures that the institution's academic influence is more reliant on genuine recognition from the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of 3.732 represents a global red flag, as it not only falls into the significant risk category but also exceeds the already critical national average of 3.408. This positions the institution as a leader in a high-risk practice within a nationally compromised environment. Such a high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied to selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a significant portion of the university's 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 information literacy initiatives to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
At -0.863, the university's Z-score is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938, though both remain in the low-risk category. This minor elevation points to an incipient vulnerability that merits attention. While extensive author lists are standard in certain 'Big Science' fields, this score suggests a need to monitor authorship patterns across all disciplines. The objective is to proactively distinguish between necessary, large-scale collaboration and any emerging tendencies toward author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.410 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.391. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. The positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be heavily reliant on external partners, as the impact of research led by its own authors is comparatively lower. This dependency poses a sustainability risk, inviting a strategic reflection on whether the university's high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a consequence of strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.559, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.484. This indicates that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard in this regard. By maintaining a lower rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution effectively mitigates the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation. This reflects a healthy balance between quantity and quality, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics.
The university exhibits a clear case of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 that stands in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the university successfully circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research output, ensuring it is validated against international competitive standards.
With a very low-risk Z-score of -0.818, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.207. This absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. The data strongly suggests that the university fosters a culture that discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This focus on publishing coherent, significant contributions reinforces the integrity of the scientific evidence base and showcases responsible research conduct.
