| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.249 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.007 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.294 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.853 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.205 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.465 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.051 | -0.207 |
Universitas Prima Indonesia demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, characterized by significant strengths in maintaining research independence and quality control. The institution's overall risk score of 1.047 reflects a generally sound operational framework, with notable resilience against national trends in retracted publications and institutional self-citation. A key area of excellence is the minimal reliance on institutional journals, which signals a strong commitment to external validation and global academic dialogue. However, this positive landscape is critically undermined by an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals, a vulnerability that not only surpasses the national average but poses a direct threat to the university's mission. This practice contradicts the pursuit of "superior research" and challenges the effectiveness of its "institutional governance." While the institution shows focus in areas like Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Social Sciences, the identified risk in publication strategy could devalue its contributions. To fully align its practices with its ambitious mission, it is imperative to implement stringent policies and training on selecting high-quality publication venues, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its research achieves genuine and lasting impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.249, a low-risk value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This suggests a minor but noticeable trend towards multiple affiliations compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight increase warrants a review to ensure these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." Proactive monitoring can help maintain the transparency and integrity of institutional representation in its published output.
With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution exhibits a very low rate of retracted publications, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.065. This demonstrates effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the wider national context. This strong performance suggests that the university's quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust. It reflects a healthy integrity culture where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before they can lead to retractions, safeguarding the institution's scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.007, indicating a negligible rate, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.821. This is a clear sign of institutional resilience and a commitment to external validation. By avoiding the national tendency towards high self-citation, the university demonstrates that it is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' This low value suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy and outward-looking research culture.
The institution's Z-score of 6.294 represents a critical and urgent alert, positioning it as a global red flag by significantly exceeding the already high national average of 3.408. This result indicates a systemic and severe issue with due diligence in selecting publication channels. A high proportion of scientific output channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage. This practice suggests a critical need for immediate intervention, including comprehensive information literacy training for researchers to avoid wasting intellectual and financial resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity platforms.
With a Z-score of -0.853, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is low, though slightly less negative than the national average of -0.938. This profile indicates an incipient vulnerability, where signals of this risk, while minimal, are slightly more present than in the national context. Outside of "Big Science" disciplines, extensive author lists can sometimes indicate inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. This minor signal serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and that all listed authors meet the criteria for meaningful contribution, distinguishing necessary collaboration from honorary attributions.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.205, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.391. A higher score in this indicator points toward a greater dependency on external partners for generating impact. This result suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the institution's scientific prestige might be slightly more reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise full intellectual leadership compared to its national peers. It invites a strategic reflection on strengthening internal research capacity to ensure that its high-impact work is increasingly driven by its own structural capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -0.465 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.484. This indicates that the level of extremely high individual publication volume is as expected for its context and size. The data does not suggest any significant imbalances between quantity and quality. This alignment confirms the absence of widespread risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reflecting a balanced approach to academic productivity that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of publication in its own journals, showing a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This is a significant strength, indicating that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest where the institution acts as both judge and party, it ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.051, a low-risk value that is slightly higher than the national average of -0.207. This finding points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that while the issue is not widespread, the institution shows slightly more signals of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' than its national counterparts. This practice, where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, can distort the scientific evidence base. The signal warrants a review of publication ethics guidelines to reinforce the importance of presenting significant, coherent new knowledge over maximizing publication volume.
