Trisakti University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Trisakti University presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity alongside critical, targeted vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.715, the institution demonstrates robust control in key areas, particularly in its very low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in institutional journals, and shows resilience against national trends of retracted output. These strengths align with its mission to enforce good university governance. Thematically, the university showcases national leadership in specific fields, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing its Dentistry program 9th in Indonesia, complemented by strong national standings in Environmental Science and Mathematics. However, this positive performance is severely undermined by a significant-risk Z-score in publications within discontinued journals, which not only exceeds the already high national average but also directly contradicts the mission's commitment to "international standards." This, combined with a moderate risk of redundant output, suggests that while foundational governance is strong, specific practices threaten to compromise the university's goal of developing science that genuinely improves the quality of life. A strategic focus on enhancing due diligence in publication venue selection is essential to protect its reputation and fully realize its mission of excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.482, slightly higher than the national average of -0.674, placing both within a low-risk context. This slight divergence from the national baseline suggests an incipient vulnerability. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick indicates that the university's collaborative patterns are marginally more intense than its peers. It warrants a proactive review to ensure these affiliations consistently represent substantive partnerships rather than early signals of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retractions, contrasting favorably with the national average of 0.065, which falls into the medium-risk category. This indicates a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the wider national environment. Retractions can be complex, but this lower-than-average rate suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively, fostering an integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be affecting other institutions in the country.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.437, a medium-risk value that is, however, substantially lower than the national average of 1.821. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is far more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's controlled rate suggests it is effectively avoiding the more severe "echo chambers" or scientific isolation seen nationally. This indicates a healthier balance, where the institution's academic influence is less likely to be oversized by internal dynamics and is more reliant on broader recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.766, a critical value that significantly exceeds the already high national average of 3.408. This constitutes a global red flag, indicating that the university not only participates in a problematic national trend but is a leading contributor to it. This high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international standards is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent and systemic need for information literacy and policy enforcement to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices that undermine its scientific mission.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.009, the institution maintains a prudent profile, performing slightly better than the national average of -0.938. Both scores are in the low-risk category, but the university's position indicates that it manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. This suggests a well-calibrated understanding of collaborative scales, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of author list inflation. This practice reinforces individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -0.218 reflects a low-risk profile but is slightly higher than the national average of -0.391, signaling an incipient vulnerability. A score closer to zero indicates a wider gap where overall impact is more dependent on collaborations led by external partners. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be slightly more reliant on exogenous factors than the national norm. While common for developing institutions, this invites strategic reflection on strengthening internal capacity to ensure that its excellence metrics are increasingly driven by research where the institution exercises direct intellectual leadership, thereby securing long-term sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, significantly below the national average of -0.484, which is already considered low risk. This demonstrates a strong low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and even surpasses the national standard. This excellent result indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume. It suggests that the university effectively discourages practices like coercive or honorary authorship, ensuring a sustainable balance between productivity and the quality of intellectual contributions.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low risk, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.189, which falls into the medium-risk category. This signals a state of preventive isolation, where the university deliberately avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, demonstrating a mature approach to scientific dissemination.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a Z-score of 1.174, a medium-risk value that represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.207, which is in the low-risk band. This indicates that the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. The score serves as an alert for the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and warrants an internal review to ensure that publication strategies prioritize significant new knowledge over volume.