| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.789 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.877 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.773 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.150 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.495 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.063 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.528 | -0.207 |
Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology presents a balanced institutional profile, with an overall integrity score of -0.065 that reflects a dynamic interplay between significant operational strengths and specific, concentrated areas of risk. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance in key areas, showing very low risk in hyper-authorship, redundant publications, and reliance on institutional journals, while also exhibiting strong intellectual leadership with minimal dependency on external partners for impact. These strengths align with its prominent national standing in core scientific and technological fields, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Computer Science (ranked 4th in Indonesia), Engineering (8th), Chemistry (12th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (12th). However, this robust foundation is contrasted by a significant alert in institutional self-citation and medium-level risks related to hyperprolific authorship and publication in discontinued journals. These vulnerabilities could challenge the institution's mission to "contribute to science and technology for the welfare of society," as practices that suggest insularity or a focus on metric volume over substantive quality may undermine the credibility and external validation essential for genuine societal impact. To fully realize its mission, the Institute is encouraged to leverage its clear governance capabilities to develop targeted strategies that enhance external engagement and recalibrate productivity incentives, ensuring its research excellence is both internally robust and globally recognized.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.789, a value indicating a prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the national standard of -0.674. This suggests that the institution's management of academic affiliations is well-controlled and operates with a higher degree of caution than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution’s low score indicates that its collaborative practices are transparent and unlikely to be used for strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and accountable research partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.353, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, showcasing notable resilience when compared to the national medium-risk environment (Z-score: 0.065). This disparity suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that may be more prevalent across the country. A low retraction rate is a positive signal of responsible supervision and robust quality control. It indicates that pre-publication review processes are likely succeeding in preventing the kinds of unintentional errors or potential malpractice that could otherwise lead to a higher volume of retractions, thereby protecting the institution's scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 2.877, a significant risk level that sharply contrasts with the country's medium-risk score of 1.821. This situation points to a risk accentuation, where the institution appears to be 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 degree of scientific isolation. It creates a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, warning of a critical risk of endogamous impact inflation. This suggests that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community, a matter requiring urgent strategic review.
The institution records a Z-score of 0.773, a medium risk level that, while warranting attention, demonstrates relative containment compared to the country's critical Z-score of 3.408. This indicates that although some risk signals are present, the institution operates with more order and diligence than the national average in a challenging environment. A medium score still constitutes an alert regarding the selection of dissemination channels, suggesting that a portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. However, its ability to avoid the national trend of high-risk behavior in this area suggests that existing policies are having a partial, positive effect, though further strengthening of information literacy is needed to prevent reputational damage and resource waste.
With a Z-score of -1.150, the institution displays a very low rate of hyper-authored publications, a figure that is even more conservative than the country's already low-risk score of -0.938. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals in this area, aligning perfectly with and even exceeding the national standard. This result suggests that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or inflated author lists. It reflects a culture where individual accountability is maintained, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.495 is in the very low-risk category and significantly stronger than the national low-risk score of -0.391. This excellent result indicates an absence of risk signals and a high degree of scientific autonomy. A very low, negative gap signifies that the impact of research led directly by the institution is robust and does not depend on external partners for prestige. This is a clear indicator of structural and endogenous scientific capacity, suggesting that the institution's excellence metrics are the result of its own intellectual leadership rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role. This reflects a sustainable and self-sufficient model of research excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.063, corresponding to a medium risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the national context, where the risk is low (Z-score: -0.484). This finding suggests the institution is more sensitive to risk factors related to extreme productivity than its national peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, a medium-risk signal in this area warrants a review of the balance between quantity and quality. It alerts to potential imbalances that could point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful participation—dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record and may require an examination of institutional incentives.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, demonstrating a pattern of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.189). This is a significant strength, indicating that the institution does not replicate the trend of academic endogamy seen elsewhere in the country. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production is subjected to independent, external peer review, which mitigates potential conflicts of interest. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, reinforcing its commitment to objective quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of -0.528 places it in the very low-risk category for redundant output, a stronger performance than the country's low-risk average of -0.207. This low-profile consistency, which surpasses the national standard, indicates the absence of risk signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' It suggests a commendable institutional focus on publishing coherent and complete studies rather than dividing research into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice reflects a commitment to making significant contributions to knowledge and respecting the scientific review system.
