Udayana University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Udayana University demonstrates a moderate overall risk profile (Overall Score: 1.440), characterized by a combination of significant strengths in research governance and critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. The institution exhibits exceptional control over practices such as hyperprolific authorship and publication in institutional journals, indicating robust internal standards. However, this is contrasted by a critical-level risk in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, which significantly elevates the university's overall risk profile and stands as its primary weakness. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly notable in areas such as Veterinary (ranked 10th in Indonesia), Business, Management and Accounting (13th), and Environmental Science (17th). These strong thematic areas provide a solid foundation for academic excellence, yet the identified integrity risks, especially concerning publication channels, directly challenge the university's mission to uphold "high morals, ethics and integrity." This discrepancy threatens to undermine the perceived quality of its scientific development. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission, it is recommended that the university leverage its areas of strong governance to implement targeted interventions, focusing urgently on enhancing information literacy and due diligence in the selection of publication venues.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.856, which is lower than the national average of -0.674. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaborations. The university's profile suggests that its processes for handling affiliations are more rigorous than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, the university’s controlled rate demonstrates a low risk of strategic practices aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, reflecting a commendable level of administrative oversight.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.418, the institution shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of 0.065. This suggests a greater exposure to the factors that lead to publication withdrawal. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national benchmark alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This discrepancy suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more systemically than in peer institutions, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.534, a figure substantially lower than the national average of 1.821. This demonstrates differentiated and effective management of a risk that appears to be more common at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university successfully avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' By maintaining a moderate level, the institution mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than primarily by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a critically high Z-score of 7.416, far exceeding the already significant national average of 3.408. This positions the university as a global red flag, leading risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. This finding constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent, systemic need for information literacy training to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.664 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938, though both remain in a low-risk category. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this signal, even if minor, suggests a need to proactively monitor for potential author list inflation outside of these contexts. Ensuring that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable will prevent the dilution of individual responsibility and preemptively address any trend towards 'honorary' authorship.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.690, indicating a moderate-risk gap, which represents a significant deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.391. This shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. The wide positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners, as its global impact is high while the impact of research it leads is comparatively low. This signals a sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.297, the institution demonstrates a very low risk in this area, performing better than the national average of -0.484. This result shows a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy academic environment. The data indicates that the university fosters a culture that prioritizes a sustainable and realistic balance between publication quantity and research quality, successfully avoiding the pressures that can lead to extreme individual publication volumes and their associated integrity risks.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This signals a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed more broadly in its environment. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the institution effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent external peer review, enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.081, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.207. This minor elevation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants attention. While citing previous work is essential, this signal indicates a need to monitor for potential data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Proactive oversight can ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.