| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.113 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.061 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.547 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.738 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.854 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.576 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.515 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.483 | -0.207 |
Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in its low global risk score of 0.329. The institution exhibits significant strengths in governance and ethical practices, particularly in its very low rates of multiple affiliations, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals, indicating a strong foundation of scientific conduct. However, this solid performance is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. The most pressing issue is a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, which poses a severe reputational risk. Additionally, medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation and a notable gap between overall impact and the impact of self-led research suggest challenges in achieving full scientific autonomy and external validation. These risks stand in tension with the institution's recognized national leadership in key thematic areas, including its Top 5 ranking in Arts and Humanities and strong positions in Social Sciences and Psychology, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully realize its mission of "Empowering Knowledge, Shaping the Future," the university must address these integrity gaps. Channeling valuable research into precarious journals and relying on external leadership for impact directly undermine the goals of empowerment and shaping the future with homegrown knowledge. A focused strategy to enhance publication channel literacy and bolster internal research leadership is essential to safeguard its reputation and align its operational practices with its aspirational vision.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.113, which is even lower than the national average of -0.674. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the national standard. The complete absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the institution's affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed, showing no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This reflects a culture of clear and legitimate researcher attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.061, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, in contrast to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.065). This divergence suggests a notable institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. A low retraction rate indicates that pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are effective, preventing the types of errors or malpractice that might otherwise lead to systemic failures in the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 0.547 places it in the medium-risk category, yet it is significantly lower than the national average of 1.821. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. While operating in an environment susceptible to 'echo chambers,' the institution shows a greater capacity to avoid endogamous impact inflation. This suggests a healthier balance between building on internal research lines and seeking validation from the global scientific community, thereby mitigating the risk of its academic influence being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 2.738 represents a significant risk, although it remains slightly below the critical national average of 3.408. This constitutes an attenuated alert; while the university shows marginally more control than its national peers, the high score is a serious concern. This indicator serves as a critical warning regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.854 is low and very close to the national average of -0.938, though slightly higher. This proximity points to an incipient vulnerability. While the risk is currently low and does not indicate a systemic issue with author list inflation, the minor deviation from the national baseline suggests that authorship practices warrant periodic review. It is a signal to ensure that collaborative patterns remain transparent and that individual accountability is not being diluted, distinguishing legitimate teamwork from any potential for 'honorary' authorship.
With a Z-score of 0.576, the institution shows a medium-risk gap, deviating moderately from the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.391). This indicates a greater sensitivity to this specific risk factor compared to its national peers. A high positive value suggests a potential sustainability risk, where the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites reflection on whether its strong excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.515 is low and almost identical to the national average of -0.484, indicating statistical normality. The risk level is precisely as expected for its context, with no significant signals of unusual activity. This alignment suggests that the institution's research environment does not foster the kinds of imbalances between quantity and quality that can lead to coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that marks a preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend seen nationally (Z-score: 0.189). This demonstrates a strong commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the university ensures its scientific production is subjected to independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks' that might inflate publication counts without sufficient scrutiny.
With a Z-score of -0.483, the institution shows a very low risk of redundant publications, performing better than the already low-risk national average of -0.207. This low-profile consistency demonstrates robust editorial standards and a research culture that values substantive contributions over inflated productivity metrics. The absence of signals related to 'salami slicing' indicates that researchers are focused on presenting coherent studies rather than fragmenting data into minimal publishable units, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
