State University of Gorontalo

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

State University of Gorontalo demonstrates a solid overall performance profile, marked by significant strengths in research governance that coexist with critical vulnerabilities requiring immediate strategic attention. The institution's primary assets are its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in its own journals, indicating a healthy academic culture that prioritizes quality over problematic metrics and avoids the endogamy risks prevalent at the national level. These strengths provide a robust foundation for its mission. Thematic analysis of SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the university's competitive positioning within Indonesia, particularly in Arts and Humanities (ranked 19th nationally) and Energy (ranked 24th nationally), showcasing focused areas of academic contribution. However, this positive outlook is severely compromised by an alarming rate of publication in discontinued journals, which significantly exceeds an already high national average. This practice directly undermines the university's mission to conduct "high quality research" and maintain "decent, clean, and authoritative governance," as it exposes its scientific output to reputational damage and questions the due diligence of its dissemination strategies. To fully realize its vision, the university must leverage its foundational integrity to urgently address this critical risk, ensuring its research excellence is channeled through globally recognized and reputable venues.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.729, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.674. This result indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. The institution's rate of multiple affiliations is not only within a low-risk threshold but is also slightly lower than the national standard, suggesting that its processes are managed with more rigor than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate confirms that the institution is effectively avoiding practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the transparency of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.051, the institution's performance is nearly identical to the national average of 0.065. This alignment suggests that the medium risk level observed is not an isolated institutional issue but rather reflects a systemic pattern or shared challenge within the national research ecosystem. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting unintentional errors, a persistent medium rate points to a potential vulnerability in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. The data indicates that the institution is facing the same structural challenges as its national peers, highlighting a shared need to strengthen methodological rigor and integrity culture to prevent recurring malpractice.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.684, a figure that, while in the medium-risk category, is notably lower than the national average of 1.821. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the university appears to be successfully moderating a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the institution's ability to keep this rate below the national trend suggests it is more effectively mitigating the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and is less prone to endogamous impact inflation, fostering a healthier balance between internal validation and external scrutiny compared to its peers.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 5.445, a figure that constitutes a global red flag, as it significantly surpasses the already critical national average of 3.408. This result indicates that the university is not only participating in a high-risk national trend but is a prominent outlier within it. This high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The Z-score suggests that a substantial part of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling 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

With a Z-score of -0.883, the institution's rate of hyper-authored publications is in the low-risk category, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.938. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, this minor uptick relative to a very low national baseline could be an early signal of author list inflation in other fields. It serves as a prompt to review authorship practices to ensure they reflect genuine contribution and maintain individual accountability, preventing the potential dilution of transparency before it escalates.

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

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.257, placing it in the medium-risk category, which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.391. This gap indicates that the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. The score suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external partners and less on its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capabilities or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, a significantly better position than the national low-risk average of -0.484. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses the already positive national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's excellent result in this area indicates a healthy research environment that effectively discourages risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.189). This is a significant institutional strength. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The institution's minimal reliance on its own journals indicates that it is successfully avoiding academic endogamy and ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation, setting it apart from the national trend.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution has a Z-score of 0.143, indicating a medium level of risk that moderately deviates from the low-risk national average of -0.207. This suggests the center is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a study is divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's higher-than-average score alerts to a potential tendency toward this practice, which can distort scientific evidence. This finding suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.