| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.040 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.080 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.034 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.870 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.024 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.873 | -0.207 |
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta presents a robust and well-governed scientific integrity profile, as evidenced by its global risk score of -0.062, which indicates a strong alignment with international best practices. The institution's primary strengths are its demonstrated capacity for autonomous research leadership, a healthy publication culture free from hyper-prolificity or data fragmentation, and a clear commitment to external validation over potentially endogamous internal channels. These attributes allow it to effectively mitigate several systemic risks prevalent at the national level. The main areas for strategic attention are the rates of institutional self-citation and, more critically, publication in discontinued journals, which, while performing better than the national average, still register as moderate risks. This solid integrity framework underpins the university's notable national standing in key disciplines, as shown by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Psychology (ranked 6th in Indonesia), Arts and Humanities (8th), and Social Sciences (18th). Such a foundation of accountability is crucial to fulfilling its mission to "develop science" and "increase national competitiveness." However, the identified risk of publishing in low-quality journals could undermine this mission by compromising the relevance and impact of its research. By leveraging its strong governance to address the specific vulnerability in publication channel selection, the university is well-positioned to consolidate its role as a national leader, ensuring its contributions to social transformation are built on a foundation of unimpeachable scientific quality.
The institution's Z-score of -1.040 is notably lower than the national average of -0.674, demonstrating an exemplary absence of risk signals that aligns with the country's already low-risk standard. This indicates that affiliations are managed with high transparency and reflect genuine collaborative efforts. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's very low rate confirms its practices are not indicative of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of authentic collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution exhibits a low risk of retracted publications, showcasing institutional resilience against the medium-risk national context (Z-score: 0.065). This suggests that its internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic vulnerabilities observed elsewhere in the country. A rate significantly lower than the average is a positive sign, indicating that pre-publication checks are robust and that the institution is not suffering from the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that a higher rate would suggest, thereby protecting its integrity culture.
The university's Z-score of 0.080 places it in the medium-risk category, but its differentiated management of this issue becomes clear when compared to the much higher national average of 1.821. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect the continuity of research lines, the national context points to a systemic risk of 'echo chambers'. The institution successfully moderates this trend, suggesting it is less prone to endogamous impact inflation and maintains a healthier balance between internal validation and external scrutiny than its national peers, ensuring its academic influence is not oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 2.034 represents a medium-level risk and is a key area for attention, although it demonstrates relative containment compared to the country's critical situation (Z-score: 3.408). A high Z-score in this indicator is a critical alert, indicating that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy and due diligence among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
With a Z-score of -0.870, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, though it signals an incipient vulnerability as it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938. This minor deviation warrants a proactive review of authorship policies. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this indicator serves as a signal to ensure that all authorship practices remain transparent and accountable, clearly distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and any potential for 'honorary' authorship that could dilute individual responsibility.
The institution's exceptional Z-score of -2.024, far surpassing the low-risk national average of -0.391, is a powerful indicator of its scientific autonomy and sustainability. A very low gap demonstrates that the university's scientific prestige is structural and results from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This performance is a hallmark of a mature and self-reliant research ecosystem, confirming that its excellence metrics are driven by genuine internal capabilities.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution's performance is exemplary, showing a near-total absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the low-risk national standard (-0.484). This indicates a healthy research environment where a sustainable balance between quantity and quality is maintained. The data suggests the university is free from dynamics such as coercive authorship or extreme 'salami slicing' that can arise from a culture prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) signals a clear preventive isolation from a risk dynamic prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.189, medium risk). This sharp contrast demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review over internal channels. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive processes and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's very low Z-score of -0.873, significantly better than the national average of -0.207, reflects a commendable absence of risk signals in this area. This indicates a research culture that values the publication of coherent, significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. By avoiding the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units, the university contributes to a more robust scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer review system, prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over sheer volume.
