Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Universitas Muhammadiyah Purwokerto presents a strong overall integrity profile, with a global score of 0.881 that reflects significant strengths in research ethics and authorship practices. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over authorship inflation, redundant publications, and academic endogamy, performing significantly better than the national average in these areas. This robust foundation is further evidenced by its resilience against national trends in retractions and institutional self-citation. However, this positive outlook is critically undermined by a significant-risk score in publications within discontinued journals, a vulnerability that is even more pronounced than the already high national average. This specific issue, along with a moderate deviation in multiple affiliation rates, requires immediate strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic contributions are particularly notable in the fields of Environmental Science and Social Sciences. Any institutional mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility is directly challenged by high-risk integrity practices. The channeling of research into low-quality outlets contradicts the pursuit of impactful knowledge. By addressing the identified vulnerabilities, particularly in publication channel selection, the university can fully leverage its foundational strengths to enhance its reputation and ensure its research contributes meaningfully to society.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.626 contrasts with the national average of -0.674, indicating a moderate deviation from the country's norm. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national low-risk profile warrants a review of internal policies to ensure all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.287, the institution demonstrates a significantly lower risk profile compared to the national average of 0.065. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed across the country. Retractions can be complex, but a low rate like this points towards responsible supervision and robust quality control mechanisms prior to publication. The university is successfully avoiding the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate would imply, reinforcing the integrity of its research culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits strong performance with a Z-score of -0.458, which is substantially better than the national average of 1.821. This result points to effective institutional resilience, successfully insulating the university from a medium-risk trend prevalent at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates it avoids the concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This demonstrates that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 6.192 is a critical alert, significantly amplifying the already high-risk national average of 3.408. This positions the university as a global red flag, leading risk metrics in a country already highly compromised in this area. This practice constitutes a severe reputational threat, as a high proportion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This finding suggests an urgent and systemic need to improve information literacy and due diligence in selecting dissemination channels to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.160, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals, a result that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.938). This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's authorship practices are well-governed and transparent. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of accountability. The university's excellent result suggests its research culture promotes meaningful contributions and avoids 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of -0.513 indicates a more prudent profile than the national standard of -0.391. This suggests that the university manages its collaborative processes with greater rigor, ensuring that its scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. A low gap signals that institutional excellence results from real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations. This points to a sustainable model for building academic impact that is both structural and endogenous.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.484. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's very low score indicates a research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics, avoiding risks such as coercive or unmerited authorship.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country shows a medium risk with a score of 0.189. This indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, steering clear of using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is very low, reflecting a stronger integrity profile than the national average of -0.207. This low-profile consistency, where risk signals are absent, aligns with a healthy national standard. A low rate of redundant output indicates that the university's researchers are focused on producing significant new knowledge rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. This approach respects the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer review system.