| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.412 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.174 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.435 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.397 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.094 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.088 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.207 |
The University of Surabaya demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, reflected in a low aggregate risk score of 0.110. This performance is anchored in exceptional control over key research practices, with very low risk signals in areas such as hyperprolificity, redundant publication, use of institutional journals, and the balance of internal versus collaborative impact. The institution also shows significant resilience, maintaining low rates of retractions and self-citation in a national context where these risks are more pronounced. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk level for output in discontinued journals and for multiple affiliations, which could pose reputational challenges. These strong integrity foundations support the university's notable academic strengths, particularly in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Environmental Science, and Psychology, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission "to advance business and industrial society... for the welfare of human being," it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. The practice of publishing in low-quality journals, for instance, directly contradicts the pursuit of excellence and social responsibility by potentially misdirecting valuable research efforts. By reinforcing its due diligence processes for publication channels and affiliation policies, the University of Surabaya can leverage its solid integrity framework to further enhance its societal impact and solidify its leadership position.
The institution's Z-score of 0.412 contrasts with the national average of -0.674. This moderate deviation indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review. It is important to ensure these patterns reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the university's distinct academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.174, significantly lower than the national average of 0.065, the university demonstrates strong institutional resilience. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate well below the national context points towards robust quality control and supervision prior to publication. This performance indicates a healthy integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to systemic failures, reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.
The university's Z-score of -0.435, compared to the country's score of 1.821, highlights its institutional resilience against endogamous practices. This performance suggests that the institution's control mechanisms successfully prevent the kind of scientific isolation that may be more common at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate demonstrates that its research is validated by the broader global community rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This protects against the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that its academic influence is based on external recognition.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.397, while the national average stands at a critical 3.408. This signals a situation of relative containment; although the university shows concerning risk signals in this area, it operates with more control than the national average. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory practices.
The university maintains a Z-score of -1.094, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.938. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its authorship attribution processes with greater rigor than the national standard. By keeping hyper-authorship low, the university effectively avoids the risks of author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. This controlled approach helps distinguish its legitimate collaborations from potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -1.088 against a national average of -0.391, the university shows low-profile consistency, as its absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. A low value in this indicator is a sign of strength, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and not overly dependent on external partners. This indicates that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, mitigating the sustainability risk that arises when an institution's impact is primarily driven by collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is well below the national average of -0.484, demonstrating a low-profile consistency where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors points to a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality. It mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, signaling a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.189, indicating a state of preventive isolation. This means the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics related to in-house publishing that are observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for achieving global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -1.186, significantly lower than the country's -0.207, the university exhibits low-profile consistency, with a near-complete absence of risk signals in this area. This extremely low value is a strong indicator that the institution discourages the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete and significant new knowledge, rather than fragmented data, demonstrates respect for the scientific evidence base and the integrity of the peer-review system.
