Universitas Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universitas Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside critical areas requiring immediate strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.799, the institution demonstrates robust control over authorship practices, evidenced by very low-risk levels in Hyperprolific Authors and Output in Institutional Journals, and effectively mitigates the national trend of retracted publications. These strengths align with its thematic leadership within Indonesia, particularly in Veterinary, Pharmacology, and Agricultural Sciences, as recognized by the SCImago Institutions Rankings. However, this positive performance is severely undermined by a significant-risk Z-score in publications within discontinued journals, which is a global red flag. This, combined with medium-risk indicators for institutional self-citation, impact dependency, and redundant publications, directly challenges the university's mission to "produce graduates who are in line with the demands of the times." Persisting in these risk areas compromises the institution's reputation and the perceived quality of its education, suggesting a disconnect with current global standards of scientific excellence and responsibility. A focused institutional effort to enhance publication literacy and promote research of genuine international relevance is essential to harmonize its practices with its strategic vision.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.247 is within the low-risk band but slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This profile suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the center shows minor signals of risk activity that warrant observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight elevation compared to the national baseline could be an early indicator of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. It is advisable to monitor this trend to ensure that all collaborative affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine scientific partnership rather than "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retractions, which contrasts favorably with the country's medium-risk average of 0.065. This indicates strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks prevalent in the national environment. Retractions can result from honest error correction, but a low rate like this suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance points to a healthy integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen more broadly.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 2.391 is in the medium-risk category and is notably higher than the national average of 1.821. This indicates high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to this risk behavior than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate can signal a concerning scientific isolation or an "echo chamber" where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.969, a significant-risk value that positions it as a global red flag, leading the risk metrics in a country already highly compromised (national average of 3.408). This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent and immediate need for information literacy training to prevent the wasting of resources on "predatory" or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.726, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is low, though slightly above the national average of -0.938. This represents an incipient vulnerability, as the center shows minor signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this slight uptick outside those contexts serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable. It is crucial to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and any potential for "honorary" or political authorship practices that could dilute individual responsibility.

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

The institution's Z-score of 2.243 indicates a medium-risk gap, a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.391. This shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A very wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. This high value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. It invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, well below the country's low-risk average of -0.484. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard of good practice. This excellent result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting that researchers are not subject to dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. It effectively avoids risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, which can be associated with extreme publication volumes.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, showing preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (country average of 0.189). This is a significant strength, as the center does not replicate the risk behaviors common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice limits the risk of academic endogamy and enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.356 is in the medium-risk range, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.207. This indicates that the center shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high value for redundant output alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as "salami slicing." This behavior can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.