| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.366 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.526 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.673 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.769 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.978 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.648 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.131 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.083 | -0.207 |
Sumatera Utara University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by a significant overall risk score of 1.718. This score reflects a duality in its performance: on one hand, the institution demonstrates exemplary control in specific areas, with virtually non-existent risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, indicating strong governance in these domains. On the other hand, critical vulnerabilities are evident in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, and Rate of Retracted Output, all of which register at significant risk levels that exceed national averages. These high-risk indicators directly challenge the University's mission to foster "scientific competence," "strong relevance and competitiveness," and "ethical conduct." The practice of publishing in discontinued journals, for instance, undermines the pursuit of relevance and academic quality. This integrity landscape coexists with notable thematic strengths, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where the University holds competitive national positions in fields such as Mathematics (6th), Dentistry (7th), Physics and Astronomy (11th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (12th). To safeguard its reputation and fully align its research practices with its mission, it is recommended that the University leverage its areas of strong governance as a model to develop targeted interventions aimed at mitigating the identified critical risks, thereby ensuring its academic excellence is built upon a foundation of unwavering scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.366, a figure that indicates a very low risk level and is notably more robust than the national average of -0.674. This result demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals at the University aligns perfectly with the low-risk standard of its national environment. This suggests that the institution's affiliations are managed with exceptional clarity and transparency. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the University's data shows no evidence of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a commendable adherence to straightforward academic collaboration.
With a Z-score of 1.526, the institution exhibits a significant risk level that is substantially higher than the country's moderate-risk average of 0.065. This disparity indicates a risk accentuation, suggesting the University amplifies vulnerabilities present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential systemic failure in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This high Z-score suggests that beyond isolated incidents, there may be a recurring vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture or methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further damage to its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 2.673, a significant risk level that markedly surpasses the national moderate-risk average of 1.821. This pattern points to a risk accentuation, where the University shows a much stronger tendency toward this behavior than its national peers. While some self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation or the formation of an 'echo chamber.' It warns of a substantial risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community, potentially limiting the reach and relevance of its research.
The institution registers an exceptionally high Z-score of 6.769, positioning it as a global red flag and a leader in this risk metric within a country already facing a critical situation (national average of 3.408). This score constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied 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. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent, systemic need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The institution's Z-score of -0.978 is almost identical to the national average of -0.938, placing both at a low-risk level. This alignment reflects a state of statistical normality, where the institution's practices regarding author list size are in sync with its context. The data does not suggest any unusual inflation of author lists. This indicates that the University's collaborative patterns are appropriate for its disciplinary focus and do not currently pose a risk of diluting individual accountability or promoting 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.648, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.391, positioning it with a prudent profile within a low-risk context. This indicates that the University manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. A smaller gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is largely built on its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This reflects a sustainable model of impact, where excellence metrics are a result of genuine internal capabilities.
With a Z-score of 0.131, the institution displays a moderate risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.484. This suggests the University is more sensitive to risk factors encouraging extreme publication volumes than its peers. This indicator serves as a warning of potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points to the risk that practices such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or assigning authorship without meaningful participation may be emerging, prioritizing metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record. A review of the underlying causes is warranted.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signifies a very low risk, creating a state of preventive isolation from the moderate risk observed at the national level (0.189). This demonstrates that the University does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding over-reliance on its in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is subjected to independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and reinforcing its commitment to competitive, validated research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.083 indicates a moderate risk level, a notable deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.207. This suggests the University is more prone to this behavior than its national counterparts. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This pattern of massive bibliographic overlap between publications can distort the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
