| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.020 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.171 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.472 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.857 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.709 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.567 | -0.207 |
Ganesha University of Education demonstrates a strong overall performance in scientific integrity, marked by a commendable overall score of 0.960. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining low-risk profiles across multiple indicators, including a minimal rate of hyperprolific authors, negligible output in its own journals, and a healthy balance in its collaborative impact, reflecting robust internal governance. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by two critical areas of concern: a significant rate of institutional self-citation and an exceptionally high rate of publication in discontinued journals. The university's academic strengths, as highlighted by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Psychology (ranked 8th in Indonesia), Arts and Humanities (30th), and Social Sciences (39th), are foundational to its mission. Yet, the identified integrity risks directly challenge the institutional goal of producing "highly quality" human resources and developing knowledge. Practices that suggest impact inflation or reliance on low-quality publication channels undermine the very essence of academic excellence and social responsibility. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university should leverage its clear strengths in governance to implement targeted strategies that address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its research contributes genuinely to societal prosperity.
The institution presents a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.020, which is even more conservative than the national average of -0.674. This demonstrates a commendable low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and surpasses the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's data suggests a well-managed and transparent approach to authorship and institutional credit, effectively avoiding any practices that could be interpreted as strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate its standing.
With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution maintains a low rate of retracted publications, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 0.065). This disparity points to strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the wider academic environment. A rate significantly lower than the national average indicates that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the type of recurring methodological or ethical failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions.
The institution's Z-score of 3.171 for self-citation is at a significant risk level, sharply accentuating the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 1.821). While a degree of self-citation is natural for building on previous work, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning trend toward scientific isolation. It creates a risk of an 'echo chamber' where research is validated internally rather than by the broader scientific community, potentially leading to an endogamous inflation of impact. This suggests the institution's perceived academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics, a practice that requires immediate review to ensure external validation and global recognition.
The institution's Z-score of 6.472 represents a global red flag, as it leads this critical risk metric within a national context that is already highly compromised (Country Z-score: 3.408). This exceptionally high rate is a severe alert regarding the due diligence process for selecting publication venues. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter guidelines to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity publishing.
The institution's Z-score of -0.857 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.938, revealing an incipient vulnerability despite both being in a low-risk category. This subtle deviation suggests the presence of early signals that warrant monitoring before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, this indicator serves as a reminder to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines remain transparent and accountable, distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from 'honorary' authorship that can dilute individual responsibility.
The institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.709 that is significantly healthier than the national average of -0.391. This low-profile consistency indicates a strong and sustainable research ecosystem. The data suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This healthy balance mitigates the risk of relying on exogenous influence for impact, confirming that its excellence metrics are the result of its own structural capabilities.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors, a figure that is considerably more controlled than the national average of -0.484. This low-profile consistency points to a research culture that prioritizes substance over sheer volume. By avoiding extreme individual publication outputs, the university effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record and promoting a healthy balance between productivity and quality.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 reflects a very low-risk practice, which is particularly noteworthy when compared to the medium-risk dynamic at the national level (Z-score: 0.189). This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids replicating the riskier trends of its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances its global visibility and reinforces the credibility of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.567, indicating a very low-risk level that is more robustly controlled than the national average of -0.207. This low-profile consistency suggests that the university fosters research practices that discourage data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By prioritizing the publication of coherent and significant studies over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and ensures its contributions to the academic community are meaningful and substantial.
