Flawed Metrics, Damaging Outcomes: A Rebuttal to the RI 2 Integrity Index Targeting Top Indonesian Universities

Muhammad Iqhrammullah (), Derren D. C. H. Rampengan, Muhammad Fadhlal Maula and Ikhwan Amri
Additional contact information
Muhammad Iqhrammullah: Postgraduate Program of Public Health, Universitas Muhammadiyah Aceh, Banda Aceh 23245, Indonesia
Derren D. C. H. Rampengan: Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Sam Ratulangi, Manado 95239, Indonesia
Muhammad Fadhlal Maula: Postgraduate Program of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh 23111, Indonesia
Ikhwan Amri: Department of Geography Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Samudra, Langsa 24416, Indonesia

Publications, 2025, vol. 13, issue 3, 1-8

Abstract: The Research Integrity Risk Index (RI 2 ), introduced as a tool to identify universities at risk of compromised research integrity, adopts an overly reductive methodology by combining retraction rates and delisted journal proportions into a single, equally weighted composite score. While its stated aim is to promote accountability, this commentary critiques the RI 2 index for its flawed assumptions, lack of empirical validation, and disproportionate penalization of institutions in low- and middle-income countries. We examine how RI 2 misinterprets retractions, misuses delisting data, and fails to account for diverse academic publishing environments, particularly in Indonesia, where many high-performing universities are unfairly categorized as “high risk” or “red flag.” The index’s uncritical reliance on opaque delisting decisions, combined with its fixed equal-weighting formula, produces volatile and context-insensitive scores that do not accurately reflect the presence or severity of research misconduct. Moreover, RI 2 has gained significant media attention and policy influence despite being based on an unreviewed preprint, with no transparent mechanism for institutional rebuttal or contextual adjustment. By comparing RI 2 classifications with established benchmarks such as the Scimago Institution Rankings and drawing from lessons in global development metrics, we argue that RI 2 , although conceptually innovative, should remain an exploratory framework. It requires rigorous scientific validation before being adopted as a global standard. We also propose flexible weighting schemes, regional calibration, and transparent engagement processes to improve the fairness and reliability of institutional research integrity assessments.

Keywords: academic ranking; research integrity; RI 2 index; retraction metrics; Indonesia (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: A2 D83 L82 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/13/3/36/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/13/3/36/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:13:y:2025:i:3:p:36-:d:1716926

Access Statistics for this article

Publications is currently edited by Ms. Jennifer Zhang

More articles in Publications from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().