| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.063 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.019 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.039 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.055 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.927 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.765 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.283 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.803 | -0.207 |
Riau University presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall integrity score of 0.759 that reflects both significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in several key areas, particularly in maintaining low rates of hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and output in its own journals, indicating a solid foundation in research ethics. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by significant risks in the rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and publications in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the university's mission to achieve "superior" higher education and "dignified governance." According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Physics and Astronomy, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Mathematics. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic aspirations for excellence and societal innovation, it is imperative that the university addresses these integrity risks, ensuring that its recognized thematic strengths are built upon a foundation of transparent, externally validated, and high-quality scientific practices.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -1.063, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.674. This demonstrates a commendable level of clarity and consistency in how affiliations are reported, surpassing the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's very low rate suggests that its collaborative practices are transparent and well-defined, effectively avoiding any signals of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This reflects a robust and straightforward approach to academic collaboration.
With a Z-score of 1.019, the institution shows a significant risk level that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.065. This disparity suggests that the university is not only participating in but amplifying a national vulnerability concerning publication quality. A high rate of retractions points towards a systemic weakness in the quality control mechanisms prior to publication. Beyond isolated incidents of error, this score serves as a critical alert that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may be present, indicating a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its academic reputation.
The institution exhibits a significant Z-score of 3.039, far exceeding the national medium-risk average of 1.821. This indicates that the university intensifies a national tendency towards self-referential research. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a serious risk of the institution operating within a scientific 'echo chamber,' where its work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice can lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be artificially oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 3.055 places it at a significant risk level, although it remains slightly below the critical national average of 3.408. This indicates that while publishing in discontinued journals is a widespread crisis in the country, the university is a major participant in this high-risk behavior. This practice constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The institution's Z-score of -0.927 is statistically normal and aligns almost perfectly with the national average of -0.938. This alignment indicates that the university's authorship patterns are consistent with the expected norms for its context and size. The low score suggests that its research collaborations, particularly in terms of author list size, are appropriate for its disciplines. This serves as a positive signal that the institution is effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or inflated authorship, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency.
With a Z-score of 0.765, the institution shows a medium-level risk, deviating moderately from the low-risk national average of -0.391. This suggests the university is more sensitive than its national peers to a dependency on external collaboration for impact. A wide positive gap, as indicated here, signals a potential sustainability risk where the institution's scientific prestige may be overly reliant on external partners rather than its own structural capabilities. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a consequence of strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.283 is in the very low-risk category, well below the national average of -0.484. This result is a clear strength, demonstrating an institutional environment that is not conducive to extreme publication volumes. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between productivity and research quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution. This points to a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low risk and showcasing a preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.189). This is a significant indicator of good practice. By not relying heavily on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is subjected to independent, external peer review, which strengthens its credibility, enhances its global visibility, and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.803, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of redundant publication, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.207. This strong result indicates a commendable focus on publishing substantive and coherent research. The data suggests that the university's authors are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal units to artificially inflate publication counts. This commitment to presenting complete research contributes positively to the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
