| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.129 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.245 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.968 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.798 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.810 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.197 | -0.207 |
Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim presents a robust integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research autonomy and ethical oversight, alongside a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. With an overall score of 0.441, the institution demonstrates exceptional performance in areas that signal strong internal governance, such as a very low dependency on external collaborators for impact, a complete absence of hyperprolific authorship, and a commendable commitment to external peer review over institutional journals. These strengths are foundational to its academic identity, particularly in its nationally prominent thematic areas within Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Chemistry, and Physics and Astronomy, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this solid base is severely undermined by a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, which not only surpasses the high national average but also directly threatens the institution's reputation and commitment to excellence. While a specific mission statement was not localized for this analysis, any pursuit of academic leadership and social responsibility is compromised when research output is channeled through platforms lacking quality and ethical standards. To secure its standing and build upon its clear strengths, the institution is advised to implement a strategic intervention focused on enhancing information literacy and due diligence in publication venue selection, thereby aligning its practices with its demonstrated potential for scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.129 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.674, indicating an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall rate of multiple affiliations is low for both the institution and the country, the university shows slightly more activity in this area. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation from the national baseline suggests that it would be prudent to review affiliation practices. Monitoring is recommended to ensure these patterns reflect genuine collaboration rather than early signals of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.146, the institution demonstrates notable resilience against a national context showing a medium risk (Z-score: 0.065). This positive performance suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of retraction seen elsewhere in the country. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors; however, the institution’s very low rate compared to the national trend strongly indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can damage an institution's integrity culture.
The institution exhibits differentiated management of self-citation risk, with a Z-score of 0.245, which is considerably lower than the national average of 1.821. Both fall within the medium-risk category, but the university is clearly moderating a practice that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, the institution's ability to keep this rate well below the national trend suggests a healthier balance and a reduced risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This indicates a greater reliance on external scrutiny and a lower probability that its academic influence is being artificially inflated by internal dynamics rather than genuine recognition from the global community.
This indicator represents a global red flag for the institution. Its Z-score of 3.968 is not only in the significant risk category but also exceeds the already critical national average of 3.408. This result suggests the institution is a leading contributor to a highly compromised national dynamic. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This finding indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. It points to an urgent need for information literacy training to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.798, while low, is slightly higher than the national Z-score of -0.938, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This means that while hyper-authorship is not a significant issue, the university shows a slightly greater tendency toward it than its national peers. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation, diluting individual accountability. This minor signal serves as a reminder to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and clearly distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially 'honorary' or political attributions.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency with a Z-score of -1.810, a very low-risk value that is significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.391. The absence of a problematic gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is generated by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership. This result points to a high degree of scientific sustainability and confirms that its excellence metrics are a reflection of genuine internal capabilities.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, performing better than the national low-risk average of -0.484. This low-profile consistency aligns with the highest standards of research integrity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent result in this area indicates a healthy academic environment that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution displays preventive isolation from a national trend of medium risk, with a Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) compared to the country's score of 0.189 (medium risk). This result is highly commendable, as it shows the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to publishing in external venues ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive processes.
The institution's Z-score of -0.197 is almost identical to the national average of -0.207, indicating statistical normality. The risk level is low and as expected for its context. This alignment suggests that the university's practices regarding bibliographic overlap are in line with national standards. While massive overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting studies—the institution's low score does not suggest this is a problem. Instead, it reflects a standard and acceptable level of self-citation necessary for building upon cumulative knowledge.
