| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.945 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.362 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.654 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.869 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.951 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.096 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.160 | -0.207 |
Tadulako University presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity, counterbalanced by specific, critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.634, the institution demonstrates robust control over several key risk areas, including an exemplary low rate of hyperprolific authorship, minimal reliance on institutional journals, and a responsible approach to multiple affiliations, often outperforming national averages. These strengths provide a solid foundation for research quality. The university's academic prowess is most prominent in the fields of Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Chemistry; and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where it holds strong national rankings according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals poses a direct threat to its mission of delivering "quality research" and ensuring its work contributes to the "welfare of the community." This practice undermines the credibility and impact of its scientific output. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the university should leverage its solid integrity framework to urgently address its publication strategy, ensuring that its valuable research is disseminated through reputable channels that reflect its commitment to excellence.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.945, which is even lower than the national average of -0.674. This demonstrates a consistent and conservative approach to authorship, where the absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's very low rate indicates a clear and transparent process for assigning institutional credit, effectively avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate its standing.
With a Z-score of -0.362, the institution shows considerable resilience compared to the national Z-score of 0.065. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A retraction rate significantly lower than the national average points to effective pre-publication quality control and responsible supervision. This performance indicates a strong integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring methodological or ethical failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions.
The university's Z-score of 1.654 is slightly below the national average of 1.821. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates a risk that is common throughout the country. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the observed rate suggests that the university is more effective than its national peers at avoiding the "echo chambers" that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. Nevertheless, this remains an area for continued monitoring to ensure that the institution's work receives sufficient external scrutiny and validation from the global scientific community.
This indicator presents a critical alert, with the institution's Z-score of 4.869 substantially exceeding the already high national average of 3.408. This is a global red flag, signifying that the university not only participates in a compromised national trend but is a leading contributor to it. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals indicates a systemic failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent and immediate need for information literacy and policy implementation to prevent the waste of valuable research resources on predatory or low-quality publishing platforms.
The institution's Z-score of -0.951 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.938, indicating a level of statistical normality for its context. This result suggests that the university's collaborative practices are standard and do not show signs of author list inflation. The data provides confidence that extensive author lists are likely tied to legitimate, large-scale collaborations rather than honorary or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a Z-score of 0.096 compared to the country's -0.391. This suggests a greater sensitivity to the risk of impact dependency than its national peers. A positive gap, where overall impact is higher than the impact of institution-led research, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be overly reliant on its role in external collaborations rather than on its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership, inviting a strategic reflection on how to foster and elevate homegrown, high-impact research.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution's rate of hyperprolific authorship is significantly lower than the national average of -0.484. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an excellent balance between productivity and quality. The complete absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the institutional culture effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of publication volume over meaningful intellectual contribution, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The university demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the country's Z-score of 0.189. By not replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment, the institution shows a strong commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. This minimal reliance on in-house journals ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent, external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and protects it from using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive assessment.
The institution's Z-score of -0.160 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.207. This indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context and size. The data shows no significant evidence of 'salami slicing' or the artificial fragmentation of studies to inflate productivity metrics. This suggests that the university's researchers adhere to standard practices of cumulative knowledge building without overburdening the review system with minimally significant publications.
