| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.181 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.046 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.756 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.042 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
4.643 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.102 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.759 | -0.207 |
Sam Ratulangi University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational discipline but also critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.729, the institution demonstrates commendable control over practices such as redundant output, use of institutional journals, and multiple affiliations, indicating a solid foundation of research governance. SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the university's thematic leadership within Indonesia, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 9th nationally) and Medicine (15th), complemented by strong positions in Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. However, this profile of excellence is directly challenged by two significant-risk indicators: an alarming rate of publication in discontinued journals and a severe dependency on external collaborators for research impact. These weaknesses fundamentally contradict the university's mission to be a "Center for Innovation" that improves community life, as they suggest that a portion of its research output may lack quality and that its innovation capacity is not yet fully autonomous. To secure its leadership role, the university must leverage its governance strengths to urgently address these critical gaps, ensuring its research practices fully align with its ambitious vision of societal advancement.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.181, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.674. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is even more controlled than the national standard. The absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the university's affiliation practices are clear and transparent. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's low rate demonstrates a strong defense against strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing the integrity of its academic footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.287, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.065. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision, but a consistently low rate, especially within a higher-risk environment, points toward robust quality control processes prior to publication. This indicates that the university's integrity culture is successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be more prevalent elsewhere.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.046, while the national average is considerably higher at 1.821. This reflects a differentiated management approach where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. Although a certain level of self-citation is natural to show research continuity, the university avoids the more pronounced national tendency toward creating 'echo chambers'. This suggests a healthier balance, where the institution validates its work through sufficient external scrutiny rather than relying on internal dynamics to inflate its perceived academic influence.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.756, a critical value that exceeds the already significant national average of 3.408. This constitutes a global red flag, positioning the university as a leader in risk metrics within a highly compromised national context. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It 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 damage and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.042 places it at a medium-risk level, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.938. This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors related to authorship than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', this indicator's elevation warns of potential author list inflation in other fields. It serves as a signal to review authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' attributions, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency.
With a Z-score of 4.643, the institution faces a severe discrepancy, as this significant-risk value is atypical and starkly contrasts with the low-risk national average of -0.391. This wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. A deep integrity assessment is required to understand why its global impact is high while the impact of research it leads is low. This invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of 0.102 indicates a medium-risk level, a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.484. This suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme productivity compared to its peers. While high output can reflect leadership, this indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of the underlying causes.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to seeking independent external peer review limits the risk of using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication and enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research.
With a Z-score of -0.759, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, which is even more robust than the country's low-risk average of -0.207. This low-profile consistency indicates an absence of risk signals and aligns with a national standard of good practice. The data suggests a strong institutional culture against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By publishing coherent, complete studies rather than dividing them into minimal publishable units, the university prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
