| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.813 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.080 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.475 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.789 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.223 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.573 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.136 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.781 | -0.207 |
Sunan Gunung Djati State Islamic University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in its very low overall risk score of 0.057. The institution exhibits exceptional governance in key areas, showing very low risk in authorship practices (Hyper-Authored Output and Hyperprolific Authors), publication originality (Redundant Output), and strategic channel selection (Output in Institutional Journals). These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic reputation, which is further evidenced by its strong national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Arts and Humanities (6th in Indonesia) and Social Sciences (24th in Indonesia). However, moderate risks in Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Discontinued Journals require strategic attention. These vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the university's mission to be "professional, accountable, and competitive," as they may suggest a degree of academic insularity and a need for improved due diligence in publication. To fully align its practices with its ambitious vision, the university is encouraged to build upon its solid integrity framework by implementing targeted policies that enhance journal selection criteria and promote broader international collaboration, thereby solidifying its leadership role at both national and ASEAN levels.
The university demonstrates a prudent approach to researcher affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.813, which indicates more rigorous management than the national average of -0.674. This suggests well-defined collaboration policies are in place. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates it effectively avoids strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, thereby maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.
The institution shows notable resilience against the systemic risks of research error observed nationally. Its Z-score of -0.080 contrasts favorably with the country's medium-risk score of 0.065, suggesting that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effective filters. A rate significantly lower than the national context points to a robust integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that might be more prevalent elsewhere, indicating that pre-publication supervision is functioning well.
With a Z-score of 1.475, the university's rate of institutional self-citation is a medium-risk indicator, yet it reflects differentiated management and better control compared to the higher national average of 1.821. This suggests the institution is moderating a risk that is common in the country. Nonetheless, this level warrants attention as it can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally. To mitigate the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensure its academic influence is recognized by the global community, the university should encourage broader external engagement and citation patterns.
The university's Z-score of 1.789 for publications in discontinued journals signifies a medium-risk signal, but it also reflects relative containment when compared to the critical national average of 3.408. This shows the institution operates with more order than its environment, though a vulnerability remains. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This finding suggests an urgent need to strengthen information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from severe reputational risks and wasted resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile in hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -1.223, which is even more controlled than the national Z-score of -0.938. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a consistent and healthy approach to authorship. The data indicates that the university's research culture successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of author list inflation. This strong performance ensures that individual accountability and transparency in authorship are well-preserved, avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.
The university exhibits a prudent and sustainable impact profile, with a Z-score of -0.573, which is healthier than the national average of -0.391. A low score in this indicator is positive, revealing a minimal gap between the institution's overall impact and the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership. This demonstrates that the university's scientific prestige is largely structural and generated by its own internal capacity, rather than being overly dependent on external partners for visibility. This balanced approach ensures long-term sustainability and reflects genuine, self-sufficient research strength.
With a very low Z-score of -1.136, compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.484, the university shows an exemplary absence of hyperprolific authorship. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy balance between research productivity and quality. The institution effectively avoids the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. This suggests a research environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued over sheer quantity.
The university demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from national trends regarding publication in its own journals. Its very low Z-score of -0.268 stands in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.189, indicating the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances its global visibility and validates its research through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution shows a very low rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.781, well below the national Z-score of -0.207. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy research environment that values substantive contributions. The data strongly suggests that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume strengthens the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and respects the scientific review system.
