Thriving within a scientific bubble: A longitudinal investigation of scientific productivity in Indonesia’s higher education system

• In Event: National, Transnational & Global University Collaborations and Interdisciplinary

Proposal

Thriving within a scientific bubble: A longitudinal investigation of scientific productivity in Indonesia’s higher education system


Background
Over the last decade, Indonesia has responded to the pressures derived from the marketization and internationalization of higher education by implementing a series of policies that aimed to transform its scientific capacity and place its higher education institutions (HEIs) among the world’s best. Among those policies was the 2014 declaration of 11 state universities in Indonesia as Autonomous HEIs with special privileges in the way they are governed and financed, but with the condition that they be included in the world university ranking (WUR) Top 500 by 2024 (Sukoco et al., 2021; Ristekdikti, 2017). Three years later, in 2017, another policy rooted in “performative accountability” (Oancea, 2008) obliged all scholars in Indonesia “to publish at least three papers in nationally indexed journals or one in an internationally indexed journal in the last three years to earn professional incentives” (Sandy & Shen, 2018, p. 251). Both policies strategically aimed at increasing publications as it a proxy for quality and accountability within the ranking regimes. A quick scan of Scopus data from 1990 to 2020, measured by the number of research papers published in international journals indexed in Scopus, shows that Indonesia’s scientific productivity did grow dramatically after 2014; however, its international collaboration decreased. Such trends have led us to further explore what is driving Indonesia’s dramatic growth in scientific productivity, and has allowed us to investigate that the following research questions (RQs):
1. What are the scientific collaboration and publication patterns of AHEIs and non-AHEIs?
2. In which subject areas do Indonesian academics in AHEIs and non-AHEIs mostly publish?
3. What are the publication preferences by different generations of Indonesian academics in AHEIs and non-AHEIs?

Data and Methods
This study is conducted within the context of Indonesia’s higher education consisting of 1,707 HEIs with publication record in the Scopus data warehouse. To ensure consistency in the measurement of scientific productivity, we define it as the number of publications per person and include only scholars who have published original papers listed in Elsevier’s Scopus database from 1990 and 2020. Within that time period, there were 94,182 scholars who were mainly affiliated with Indonesian HEIs and who published at least one article. Using the longitudinal data extracted from the databased, we answer our RQs using different visualization techniques (including a Sankey and a Heat diagram) to illustrate our findings. Further, we employ simple regressions to compare the scientific publication preference across different generations of scholars.

Results

RQ1: What are the scientific collaboration and publication patterns of AHEIs and non-AHEIs?
Our findings reveal that before 2010, Indonesian HEIs only had marginal scientific production for both AHEIs and non-AHEIs. Albeit exhibiting an exponential increase by both, after 2014, non-AHEIs overtook AHEIs in scientific productivity. A closer look into the driving force behind this growth comes from the preference by both types of HEIs for single authorship in low-quality journals. Similarly, there is low preference by both types of HEIs for foreign collaboration, and when they do collaborate, most publications are in journals of higher quality.

RQ2: In which subject areas do Indonesian academics in AHEIs and non-AHEIs mostly publish?
Upon considering the publication preference by subject area, Indonesian academics in all HEIs generally published mostly in STEM fields; however, the bulk of their publications came from “unclassified” fields as per Scopus’ definition, thereby reflecting Scopus’ concern about the quality of those journals. Interestingly, after 2014, academics in AHEIs started to publish more in “unclassified” subject areas as did those in non-AHEIs. Similarly, publications in social sciences increased and overtook those in the STEM fields for non-AHEIs.

RQ3: What are the publication preferences by different generations of Indonesian academics in AHEIs and non-AHEIs?
After 2014, the number of new scholars (defined as those researchers whose first publication year is in or after 2014) in non-AHEIs overtook those in AHEIs. Therefore, considering the publication preferences by different generations of scholars yields significant publication preferences among them. Those scholars whose first publication year is in or after 2014 are more likely to publish their papers in the lowest quality journals. Moreover, the growth in scientific productivity is driven mostly by new scholars after 2014, and who were mostly pressured to publish by the mandates. Further analysis into the issue reveals that compared with those scholars in the 2011-2013 group, the new scholars in the 2014 to 2016 group for both AHEIs and non-AHEIs would publish more in the lower-tier journals indicating a statistically significant relationship between publications and academics groups. While we. are careful not to assume causality, it is worth noting that such relationship might be indicative of the impact of a series of higher education policies adopted over past decade by Indonesia.

Conclusion and Implications
Indonesia’s quest to improve its scientific productivity has produced fruitful yet questionable results. Indeed, its scientific capacity and competitivity have dramatically increased perhaps driven by the policies of the last decade. However, our empirical findings show that Indonesia is thriving within its own scientific bubble and leveraging their academic community to drive its scientific growth. Driven by single authorships in low-quality journals, Indonesia’s experience sheds light on some important implications for the scientific community. The strict publication requirement imposed on the academic professionals might be stifling innovation and the pursuit for quality. Rather than improving it, such practices might damage the scientific infrastructure. Similarly, focusing on performative accountability might encourage academics to continue publishing in low-quality journals as long as they have “publishable” results.

Authors

• Junedi Fnu, National Taipei University of Technology

• Amelio Salvador Quetzal, National Chung Cheng University

• Bea Treena Burayag Macasaet, University of Luxembourg

• Juan José Moradel Vásquez, University of Luxembourg