| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.612 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.137 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.863 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.144 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.919 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.270 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.287 | -0.207 |
Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile with a score of 0.928, characterized by significant strengths in managing research ethics and a clear, yet critical, area for strategic improvement. The institution exhibits exemplary control over authorship practices, showing very low risk in hyperprolific authors and the use of institutional journals, effectively isolating itself from national trends of concern. This robust internal governance is further evidenced by its resilience against the national rate of retracted publications. However, a significant vulnerability exists in the high rate of publications in discontinued journals, which poses a direct threat to the university's mission of achieving "Advanced, Excellent, Characterized, and Competitive" status. This practice undermines the pursuit of excellence and competitiveness by associating the university's output with low-quality or predatory channels. Thematically, the university shows notable national competitiveness in key areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 28th), Physics and Astronomy (29th), and Engineering (38th). To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic ambitions, the university should focus on enhancing information literacy and due diligence in publication venue selection, thereby safeguarding its growing reputation and ensuring its research contributes meaningfully to the global scientific community.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.612, a value slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. Although the overall risk level is low and broadly in line with the national context, this minor deviation suggests an incipient vulnerability. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's slightly elevated rate indicates a trend that warrants monitoring. It is important to ensure that these affiliations reflect genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the university's distinct academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.137, the university demonstrates notable institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national average of 0.065, which signals a medium risk. This contrast suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions can result from honest error correction, but a low rate like this, in a context of higher national risk, points towards robust and successful pre-publication supervision. This performance indicates a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or systemic failures that a higher rate would suggest.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.863, which, while indicating a medium level of risk, reflects differentiated management compared to the national average of 1.821. This shows the institution is successfully moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's lower rate suggests a healthier balance between referencing internal research lines and engaging with external scientific scrutiny. This proactive management helps mitigate the risk of creating 'echo chambers' and ensures the institution's academic influence is less susceptible to inflation by internal dynamics alone.
The institution's Z-score of 6.144 is a global red flag, significantly exceeding the already high national average of 3.408. This result indicates that the university is not only participating in a critical national risk dynamic but is a leading contributor to it. This is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage. It suggests an urgent and systemic need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources and credibility on 'predatory' or low-quality practices that directly contradict the university's mission of excellence.
With a Z-score of -0.919, which is almost identical to the national average of -0.938, the university's performance reflects statistical normality. The risk level is low and aligns perfectly with its context, indicating that authorship practices are standard and appropriate. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can signal inflation or diluted accountability. However, the university's low score confirms the absence of such issues, suggesting that its collaborative patterns are legitimate and do not show signs of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The university's Z-score of -0.270, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.391, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This gap measures the difference between the impact of all institutional output versus the impact of output where the institution holds a leadership role. The slightly elevated score suggests a minor but noteworthy dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. This pattern can pose a long-term sustainability risk, indicating that scientific prestige may be more dependent and exogenous rather than structurally rooted in internal capacity. It invites a strategic reflection on fostering greater intellectual leadership from within the institution.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating low-profile consistency and outperforming the national low-risk average of -0.484. This complete absence of risk signals is a clear strength, aligning with a healthy and balanced research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The university's excellent score indicates that its researchers' productivity is not compromising quality, and the institutional culture effectively discourages practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university shows a very low risk, a clear case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This result is a significant strength, demonstrating a firm commitment to independent, external peer review. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass standard competitive validation. This approach enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, distinguishing it from national trends where internal channels might be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The university exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.287, which is better than the national average of -0.207. Both scores are in the low-risk category, but the university's lower value indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The university's favorable score suggests its researchers adhere to a higher standard, prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over artificially increasing output volume.
