Pelita Harapan University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Pelita Harapan University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall risk score of 1.410, the institution excels in maintaining intellectual leadership, avoiding academic endogamy, and managing collaborative affiliations, often outperforming national averages. These strengths are foundational to its research culture. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by high-risk indicators in publication practices, specifically an alarming rate of output in discontinued journals and a pattern of redundant publications. The university's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in fields like Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 3rd in Indonesia), Medicine (7th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (22nd), showcases its potential for high-impact research. Yet, the identified integrity risks directly challenge its mission to "contribute to the advancement of knowledge" and "participate redemptively in the development of...society," as practices that compromise quality and credibility erode the very foundation of these goals. To safeguard its reputation and fully align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its areas of strength to implement a robust, institution-wide review of its publication and authorship policies, ensuring that its pursuit of knowledge is synonymous with the highest standards of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.990, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.674. This result indicates a commendable absence of risk signals in an area where the national context already shows a low propensity for issues. The university’s performance suggests that its policies effectively govern researcher affiliations, ensuring they reflect legitimate collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This low-profile consistency aligns with best practices and reinforces the transparency of its collaborative research footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution demonstrates a low risk of retracted publications, a notable achievement when compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.065. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed at the national level. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the national benchmark indicates that the university's quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust and effective, preventing the types of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can damage an institution's integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.837, which, while indicating a medium risk level, is substantially lower than the national average of 1.821. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's relative control suggests it is less susceptible to the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' or the endogamous inflation of its impact. This reflects a healthier balance, where research is validated through a mix of internal continuity and external scrutiny from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 7.053, a figure that is not only in the significant risk category but also more than double the already critical national average of 3.408. This constitutes a global red flag, indicating the university is a leading contributor to a highly compromised national dynamic. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage, as it suggests a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. An urgent and thorough review of information literacy and publication guidance for researchers is necessary to prevent the channeling of scientific output through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, which constitutes a significant waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.909 is statistically normal and aligns almost perfectly with the national average of -0.938. This indicates that the university's risk level for hyper-authorship is as expected for its context and size. The data does not suggest any unusual inflation of author lists or a dilution of individual accountability. The institution's authorship patterns appear to be consistent with legitimate collaborative practices within its disciplines, showing no signs of 'honorary' or political authorship that would warrant further investigation.

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

With a Z-score of -1.524, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk, far surpassing the national average of -0.391. This is a sign of significant strength, reflecting a high degree of scientific autonomy and internal capacity. The negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by the university's own authors is robust and does not depend on external partners for prestige. This result counters the risk of a dependent or exogenous scientific reputation, confirming that the institution's excellence metrics are driven by genuine, structural intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of 0.706 places it at a medium risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.484. This discrepancy suggests the institution is more sensitive to risk factors related to extreme individual productivity than its national peers. While high output can reflect leadership, this indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It warrants a review to ensure that high publication volumes are the result of meaningful intellectual contributions and not dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a very low risk, creating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.189). This is a strong indicator of good governance, as the university does not replicate the national tendency toward academic endogamy. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate academic output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 4.243 is a critical alert, indicating a significant risk level that represents a severe discrepancy from the low-risk national environment (-0.207). This atypical risk activity is an anomaly that requires a deep integrity assessment. A high value in this indicator strongly suggests a pattern of 'salami slicing,' where coherent studies may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. An urgent audit of publication practices is recommended.