Universitas Negeri Padang

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universitas Negeri Padang demonstrates a robust overall performance with a score of 0.744, characterized by significant strengths in research autonomy and integrity, alongside critical vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. The institution excels in areas that signal strong internal governance, such as a very low dependency on institutional journals and a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership. These strengths provide a solid foundation for sustainable growth. However, this positive profile is severely undermined by a significant-risk score in institutional self-citation and medium-risk flags for hyperprolific authorship and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Medicine (ranked 2nd), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (3rd), Psychology (3rd), and Social Sciences (5th). These high-impact fields are directly threatened by the identified integrity risks. The mission to become an "International standard University" and to "spread knowledge... at national and international level" is fundamentally contradicted by practices that suggest academic isolation and impact inflation. To align its operational reality with its strategic vision, the university must leverage its clear governance strengths to urgently address the self-citation patterns and reinforce quality control in publication channels, thereby ensuring its national leadership translates into genuine global recognition.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.776, which is slightly lower than the national average of -0.674. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration. The institution's practices appear more rigorous than the national standard, suggesting a controlled and transparent policy regarding researcher affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's conservative profile effectively minimizes any risk of strategically inflating institutional credit or engaging in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and accountable academic contribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.061, the institution demonstrates notable resilience against the risk of retractions, especially when compared to the national average of 0.065, which falls into a medium-risk category. This suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that may be present in the wider national context. Retractions can be complex, sometimes resulting from honest error correction. However, the institution's low rate indicates that its pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, successfully preventing the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate would imply and safeguarding its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 8.093, a critical value that represents a significant risk and sharply accentuates the national trend (Z-score of 1.821). This figure is a major red flag, indicating that the institution is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice poses a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's perceived academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global scientific community, directly undermining its international aspirations.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 2.541, placing it in a medium-risk category. However, this performance demonstrates relative containment when compared to the country's significant-risk average of 3.408. Although risk signals are present, the data suggests the institution operates with more order and diligence in selecting publication venues than the national average. Nonetheless, a high proportion of publications in discontinued journals remains a critical alert. It indicates that a segment of its scientific output is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and highlighting an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.436, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938, though both remain in a low-risk band. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, this signal suggests a need to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines are transparent and reflect meaningful contributions. Monitoring this trend is crucial to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential emergence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could dilute individual accountability.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.914, a very low-risk value that is even more favorable than the country's low-risk score of -0.391. This result signifies low-profile consistency and is a strong indicator of institutional health and autonomy. The absence of a significant gap demonstrates that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership. This finding is highly positive, suggesting that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities, providing a sustainable foundation for achieving its mission of becoming an international standard university.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.298 places it in a medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk score of -0.484. This divergence is an alert that requires a review of its causes, as the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator warns of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk in this area, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.189). This is a significant strength, indicating that the institution does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, a critical step for limiting conflicts of interest and enhancing global visibility. This practice aligns perfectly with its goal of achieving international standards and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.173, slightly higher than the national average of -0.207, though both are well within the low-risk range. This minor difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While citing previous work is essential, this indicator monitors for massive bibliographic overlap that may indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Although the current level is not alarming, it serves as a reminder to encourage the publication of comprehensive, significant work over fragmented outputs that can distort scientific evidence.