| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.157 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.089 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.604 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.144 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.883 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.969 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.764 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.210 | -0.207 |
Syiah Kuala University demonstrates a commendable profile of scientific integrity, characterized by significant strengths in research governance and autonomy, alongside exposure to systemic risks prevalent at the national level. The institution's overall score of 0.414 reflects a robust performance in key areas, particularly in maintaining a very low rate of publication in institutional journals and ensuring a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its researcher-led output. These strengths suggest a culture that values external validation and fosters genuine intellectual leadership. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by a critical-level risk associated with publishing in discontinued journals and medium-level alerts for retracted output and institutional self-citation. These challenges, which largely mirror national trends, indicate vulnerabilities that could undermine the institution's long-term reputational and academic goals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research capacity is particularly strong in several fields, ranking within the top 10 nationally in Physics and Astronomy (5th), Chemistry (6th), Veterinary (7th), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (9th). The university's stated mission to "organize quality and innovative research" and achieve "high competitiveness" is well-supported by its low levels of academic endogamy but is directly challenged by the high-risk indicators. The significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, in particular, conflicts with the pursuit of excellence and transparency, potentially devaluing the outputs from its strongest research areas. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, it is recommended that Syiah Kuala University leverages its governance strengths to implement targeted policies focused on enhancing due diligence in publication venue selection, thereby safeguarding its academic mission and solidifying its role as a leading independent university.
The institution's Z-score of -1.157, compared to the national average of -0.674, indicates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations. This result demonstrates a clear and conservative approach to institutional representation, aligning with the low-risk national context while showing even greater control. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The absence of such signals at the university reinforces the integrity of its collaborative framework and the clarity of its research attributions.
With a Z-score of 0.089, closely mirroring the national average of 0.065, the university's rate of retracted output suggests it is facing challenges common throughout the national research system. This alignment indicates that the issue likely reflects a shared pattern rather than a unique institutional flaw. A high Z-score in this indicator suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. The university's performance, being in line with the national context, points to a vulnerability in the broader integrity culture that requires a review of methodological rigor and pre-publication oversight to ensure research reliability.
The university's Z-score of 1.604 for institutional self-citation is moderately high, but it is notably lower than the national average of 1.821. This indicates that while the institution is exposed to the same systemic tendencies toward self-referencing seen across the country, its internal management practices appear to be successfully moderating this risk. Disproportionately high rates of self-citation can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the university demonstrates a greater orientation toward external validation, reducing the risk of endogamous impact inflation and showing that its academic influence is more reliant on global community recognition.
The Z-score of 3.144 for publications in discontinued journals represents a significant risk, placing the university in a critical alert category. Although this score is slightly below the severe national average of 3.408, it highlights a widespread and urgent issue. This indicator is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as a high score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy and policy implementation to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.883, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938. This subtle difference suggests the emergence of a potential vulnerability that warrants monitoring. When extensive author lists appear outside 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's position relative to the national norm suggests a need for a proactive review of authorship practices to ensure they remain transparent and justified, preventing this minor signal from escalating into a more significant concern.
With a Z-score of -0.969, the university demonstrates a very low gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds a leadership role, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.391. This is a strong indicator of research autonomy and sustainability. A wide positive gap can suggest that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The university's excellent score indicates that its high-impact research results from genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, reinforcing its standing as a self-reliant academic institution.
The university's Z-score of -0.764 for hyperprolific authors is well within the low-risk range and is notably better than the national average of -0.484. This demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing research productivity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's controlled performance in this area suggests that it fosters a research environment that prioritizes substantive contributions over sheer volume, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive or honorary authorship.
The university exhibits a Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, a very low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This marked difference highlights a successful preventive strategy, isolating the institution from a common national risk dynamic. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. By avoiding this practice, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and demonstrating a commitment to competitive validation over internal 'fast tracks' for publication.
With a Z-score of -0.210, the university's rate of redundant output is almost identical to the national average of -0.207, placing both in the low-risk category. This alignment indicates that the institution's performance is statistically normal for its context and size. While massive bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies to artificially inflate productivity—the university's low score suggests that this is not a prevalent issue. Its practices are in sync with the national standard, reflecting a healthy approach to cumulative knowledge building.
