The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2053-4620.htm

Research
Research strength index to identify strength index
the performance of research
universities: the case of Indonesia
Muhammad Dimyati
Department of Geography, Faculty of Mathematics and Science,
Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia Received 12 June 2020
Revised 5 July 2021
8 November 2021
Prakoso Bhairawa Putera Accepted 12 January 2022
National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia and Faculty of Social
and Political Sciences, Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang, Indonesia, and
Chichi Shintia Laksani, Muhammad Zulhamdani, Setiowiji Handoyo,
Yan Rianto and Laksana Tri Handoko
National Research and Innovation Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify the strengths of the universities based on the research area which are
prioritized by the Government of Indonesia in the National Medium Term Development Plan 2015–2019, in the
research areas of food and agriculture; energy, new and renewable energy; health and medicine; transportation;
telecommunication, information and communication; defense and security technologies and advanced materials.
Design/methodology/approach – The mapping of the research strength in Indonesian universities is
performed by using data of the university research output in the Information System for Research and
Community Service, Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education and categorized into seven
categories, i.e. accredited national journals, international journals indexed by Scopus or others, Intellectual
Property ownership, textbooks, prototypes and an appropriate technology. Based on the data obtained from
Information System for Research and Community Service, there are 904 universities in Indonesia conducting
research activities and generating 14,188 research outputs.
Findings – This paper analyzes 3 of the 9 National Research Priorities, namely, food, energy and health and
medicine. The data show that there are 904 universities in Indonesia conducting research activities and producing
14,188 research results. The research strength index based on National Research Priorities shows that three
universities have the highest cluster strength index. Gadjah Mada with an index value of 4.95 is the highest index
in the food cluster. In the energy cluster of the Institut Teknologi Bandung with the highest index value of 0.63.
Meanwhile, the Universitas Indonesia reached 2.06 as the highest index value in the health and medicine cluster.
Originality/value – Measurement of the strength of the study was conducted using data from research
results from universities in 2016 which were recorded in the Information System for Research and Community
Service. The University’s R&D strength is calculated from seven categories of research results: accredited
national journals, international journals indexed by Scopus or others, intellectual property rights, textbooks,
prototypes and appropriate technology products.
Keywords Research strength, R&D strength, Higher education, National research priority,
Cluster research strength index
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Journal of Science and Technology

Policy Management
This study examines the strengths of universities in Indonesia based on the research fields © Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4620
carried out. This study focuses on three research areas based on the National Medium Term DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-06-2020-0096
JSTPM Development Plan 2015–2019: food and agriculture, energy, new and renewable energy and
health and medicine.
In the era of knowledge-based economy (KBE), there has been a paradigm shift about the
key factors of the economic development. In the 20th century, a physical capital became the
main factor that was believed to be the main driver in the economic development. But
nowadays, an intellectual capability becomes the key factor in the economic development
(Powell and Snellman, 2004). This is in line with the view that the KBE transition makes
value creation and sustainable competitive advantage a requirement. In this context,
intellectual capital becomes essential (Galabova and Ahonen, 2011), including academic
research as a significant integral part of the construction industry in KBE (Hadiwattege
et al., 2018). In addition, the importance of innovation and technology learning pave the way
in building KBE (Ahmed and Al-Roubaie, 2012), and rides such as science parks play an
essential role in developing technology that can ultimately drive a country’s economic
growth (Khanmirzaee et al., 2018). They define the KBE as production and services based on
intensive knowledge activities that contribute to an acceleration of the technical and
scientific progress (Dale and Kyle, 2015).
In the experience of many countries, such as Qatar and Lebanon, KBE is driven by the
education system, entrepreneurial culture and of course, the government’s commitment to
creating policies and diversifying the economy (Ben Hassen, 2020). Therefore, in the context
of KBE, an innovation through the triple-helix model becomes very important, as revealed in
the case study of the country of Myanmar (Sinha, 2018). In this model, universities have an
important role in the innovation systems that will contribute to the national economic
development (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Krishna, 2019; Reichert, 2019; Yao et al., 2018).
Universities play a role in the process of the economic growth as a source of new knowledge
and as a coach of scientists and technicians working in the industrial laboratories
(Etzkowitz, 2016; Hill, 2006; Wynn and Jones, 2017). Meanwhile, the contribution of
universities to innovation can be done by upgrading the human resource skills, transferring
the knowledge and technology to industry and becoming an embryo of new companies
(Etzkowitz et al., 2021; Lahikainen et al., 2018; Lazzeroni and Piccaluga, 2003; Sanadgol and
Dadfar, 2020).
In Indonesia, the function of universities is regulated in National System of Research,
Development and Application of Science and Technology Act (Act No. 18, 2002). In the
regulation, a university is regarded as one of the institutional elements of science and
technology in addition to R&D institutions, business entities and supporting institutions.
The university in accordance with Article 7 paragraph (1) and (2) has a function in human
resource development especially in Science and Technology. Even in the Law on the
National System of Science and Technology (Act No. 11, 2019), which is a replacement
regulation of Law Number 18 of 2002, universities have the function of preparing human
resources for the implementation of science and technology. To carry out the function,
universities are mandated to be responsible for education and teaching capability, research
and development and community service. Currently, in Indonesia, there are 4,611
universities with different ownership status and types (Figure 1). Kemenristekdikti Forlap
data (2018) shows that 90% of universities in Indonesia are private. Meanwhile, most
universities are college.
Despite economic development brings Indonesia into the middle class economy, the
innovation of Indonesia is still relatively low. The Global Innovation Index 2017 shows that
the innovation of Indonesia is ranked number 87 of the 127 countries. This rank is lower
than other Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines (73), Brunei Darussalam (71),
Thailand (51), Vietnam (47) and Malaysia (37) (Dutta et al., 2017). Three years later, in 2020,
 Research
strength index

Figure 1.
Higher education in
Indonesia by type

all countries in Southeast Asia have a better innovation index than 2017, such as Cambodia
(110), Malaysia (33), Indonesia (85), Vietnam (42), Singapore (8), Thailand (44), Philippines
(50) and Brunei Darussalam (71). Although the Indonesian innovation index has increased
from the ranking session, one factor causing the low innovation index is a weak research
activity in Indonesia (Dutta et al., 2020).
Indonesia R&D expenditure is low. In 2016, gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) is 30.78tn
rupiahs or 0.25% of gross domestic product (Knowledge Sector Initiative, 2019). This
describes that Indonesia is far behind other ASEAN countries, such as Thailand (0.63%),
Malaysia (1.3%) and Singapore (2.2%). The data also shows that R&D expenditure of the
universities (excluding from the government) is only 0.81tn rupiah or 2.65% of the total
GERD. The weak research contribution to an innovation in the university can also be
indicated by the number of patents. Data from the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights
noted that there are currently 34,000 registered patents (Dimyati et al., 2019). However, 95%
are foreign patents and only 5% are domestic patents. This is contradictory with the
number of research institutions and universities in Indonesia. This condition indicates the
low of research capacity of the universities for innovation.
To improve the competitiveness for national economic growth, and as efforts to promote, the
role of universities through strengthening research capacity become essential. And the current
limited national R&D budget, it is necessary to prioritize research according to the direction of the
research investment. There are a number of measures and efforts to optimize the role of research
universities. One of the measures is conducted by the provision of research incentives in the
priority area. University research incentive programs include Superior Research Programs of
Higher Education, Excellent Mainstay Research of Higher Education and Industry and National
Strategic Excellence Research (Mustangimah et al., 2021).
Superior Research Programs of Higher Education is granted based on the research
project that has been determined in the University Research Master Plan. The grant schema
can be top down or bottom up. Excellent Mainstay Research of Higher Education and
Industry is a top down research grant, in which the research area is strategic for improving
the competitiveness and sovereignty of the nation. Excellent Mainstay Research of Higher
JSTPM Education and Industry is a collaborative research grant between university and industry.
National Strategic Excellence Research is a semi top-down research grant, based on nine
national research priorities (Direktorat Riset dan Pengabdian Masyarakat, Deputi Bidang
Penguatan Riset dan Pengembangan, K. R. dan T./B. R. dan I. N, 2020; Gustina et al., 2020).
This commercialization-oriented scheme involves industrial partners or government R&D
institutions. The programs are not effective enough since the role of research in the
universities is still weak. One of the reasons is that the incentives did not consider the
research strength of the university. Identifying the strengths of the university research areas
is essential. This can be the basis for providing incentive programs to make the research
output and impact on innovation.
Based on the description above, the central research questions are as follows:

RQ1. How to map the power of research in universities in Indonesia, especially in the
fields of food and agriculture, energy, new and renewable energy and health and
medicine?

2. Research methodology
To map the strength of research in universities in Indonesia, a measurement indicator is first
compiled. In this section, two topics are explained, namely, the study of literature on
measuring research strength and measuring methods.

2.1 Measurement of research strength

There are many attempts for measuring research strengths of a research institution. In
general, research strengths can be measured from the number of publications and the
number of citations (Abramo and D’Angelo, 2014; De Bra, 2000; Markusova et al., 2009).
Rudd (1988) stated that the evaluation of the quality of research could be seen from the peer
review (Scherzinger and Bobbert, 2017), the number of publications, the citation and the number
of research grants/research contracts obtained (Rudd, 1988). According to Meek and van der Lee
(2005), the quality of the research programs in the universities can be assessed by looking at
aspects, research impacts, research sustainability, research importance and research potential
(Meek and van der Lee, 2005). Then, the assessment results can also be used as the priority basis
for the funding allocation. Altvater-Mackensen et al. (2005) used the number of publications
(SciSearch database) and the number of patents (European Patent Office) as an indicator to
measure the research strength of the leading institutions (Altvater-Mackensen et al., 2005). Other
indicators are presented by Lukman et al. (2010), in which they conduct university rankings
based on research and academic reputation (publications, research expenses and library and
equipment), education (student/staff ratio, graduation rate, international students, presence on the
Web, employment rate) and environmental performance (Lukman et al., 2010). Abramo and
D’Angelo (2015) measured the research performance by looking at the individual performance
and the performance of science in the institutions (Abramo and D’Angelo, 2015). Cheng et al.
(2017) provide a slightly different approach; the study did not only use the basic indicators
covering the number of publications and patents but it also started to see the social and economic
impacts (Cheng et al., 2017).
International institutions such as Shanghai Ranking Consultancy and SCImago also
have indicators in the university performance measurements and annually publish results.
Shanghai Ranking Consultancy gives the weight of the research output indicator by 40%
(20% for publication, 20% for indexed citation), 40% for quality indicator from faculty (20%
reward received by researcher, 20% researcher with highest citation index by field), 10% for
the quality of education seen from the presence of alumni contributing to research Research
institutions/prizes and another 10% measured from per capita performance, i.e. institutional strength index
performance on per capita performance of the country (Pavel, 2015). SCImago gives the
highest weight on the research factor (50%), innovation (30%) and social (20%) (Gomez-
Núñez et al., 2011) (Table 2).

2.2 Measurement method

The mapping of the research strength in Indonesian universities is performed by using data
of the university research output in 2016 which was stored in the Information System for
Research and Community Service, Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education.
It is based on R&D strength and National Priority Research Sector in National Medium
Term Development Plan 2015–2019. Seven research outputs from the university are used to
measure the R&D strength of the university.
Research Information System and Community Service has categorized research output
into seven categories, i.e. accredited national journals, international journals indexed by
Scopus or others, intellectual property ownership, textbooks, prototypes and an appropriate
technology. Based on the data obtained from Information System for Research and
Community Service, there are 904 universities in Indonesia conducting research activities
and generating 14,188 research outputs.
Research outputs generated by universities are mostly contributed in the form of
international journals indexed by Scopus or other machines. There are 10,110 international
journals or about 72% of the total research output produced by universities. The
contribution of each research output category to the total research output produced by
universities can be shown in Figure 2.
Furthermore, the research output described above is calculated based on the expert panel
assessment by the level of importance (Table 1).
The research strength of the university is calculated through the assessment of the
research output weight by the following formula.

Figure 2.
Share of research
output on total
research output of
universities in
Indonesia
 P M 
N P 
JSTPM Research Outputi;j X Weighti;j  WAV
j¼1 i¼1
RS ¼
WAV

XN XM ðResearch Output i  W eight i Þ

W eighted Average ðW AV Þ ¼ j¼1 i¼1 N

N : Number of university;
M : Number of type of Research Output; and
WAV: Weighted Average.
The number of research output produced by universities in Indonesia is a potential that can
be developed further to benefit the scientific community and society. Therefore, it is
necessary to examine what sectors can be more focused in conducting research activities in
the universities. Thus, the research resources can be more qualified for improving the
welfare of nation and not only rely on the quantity of the research output. Based on the data
obtained from Information System for Research and Community Service, there are 9,268
outputs that are in line with the national medium-term development plan in the field of
Science and Technology 2015–2019. These areas of focus include:
 food and agriculture;
 energy, new and renewable energy;
 health and medicine;
 transportation;
 telecommunication, information and communication;
 defense and security technologies; and
 advanced materials.

The research strength measurement based on the focus research area results the university
group with the highest research output and also maps the universities according to their
research strength. The mapping of the university research strength is limited in the priority
areas of Indonesian government development, namely, food, energy and health.

3. Result and discussion

In this paper, the mapping of the university research strength is focused on the field of food,
energy and health.

No Type of research output Weight *

1 IPR 18
2 Scopus-indexed international journal 17,2
3 Prototype 14,4
4 International journals indexed by other than Scopus 14,4
Table 1. 5 Appropriate technology 13,2
Weight of research 6 Textbooks 12,8
output 7 National journals 10,6
De Bra (2000);
Markusova et al., 2009;
Abramo and D’Angelo (2014)
Rudd (1988)
Meek and van der Lee (2005)
Altvater-Mackensen et al. (2005)
Lukman et al. (2010)
Abramo and D’Angelo (2015)
Cheng et al. (2017)
 No. of publications
Research
 No. of citations strength index
 Subjective evaluation (peer review)
 Number of publications
 Number of citation
 Number of research grants/research contracts obtained
 Impact of research
 Research sustainability
 The importance of research
 Research potential
 Number of publications (SciSearch database)
 Number of patents (European Patent Office)
 Research and academic reputation (publications, research
expenses and library and equipment)
 Education (student/staff ratio, graduation rate international
students, presence on the Web employment rate)
 Environmental performance
 Individual performance
 Scientific performance of the institution Table 2.
 Number of publications Indicators of
 Number of patents university research
 Social and economic impacts measurement

3.1 Result mapping of the university research strength in Indonesia

3.1.1 Food and agriculture. The number of the research output from universities in the
research area of food is 990 outputs. The research output consists of Scopus-indexed
international journals (394), international journals indexed by others (355), textbooks (70),
appropriate technology (68), accredited national journals (56), intellectual property (37) and
prototype (10). The contribution of the research output in the research area of food is mostly
produced in the form of international journals with a total contribution of 76%. This
indicates that the research output in this field gives more contribution in the scientific
productivity than in the intellectual property and appropriate technology which can be
developed into a new product commercialization (Figure 3).
In the research area of food there are three universities that produce the most output as
follows. The first is Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) with a total of 113 outputs. The second

Figure 3.
The contribution of
research outputs
types to the total
output of higher
education research in
the field of food
JSTPM is Universitas Brawijaya (Unibraw) with 73 outputs. While Bogor Agricultural Institute
(IPB) known as a university that focuses on agriculture has only 66 outputs (Figure 4).
3.1.2 Energy, new and renewable energy. The number of the research output from
universities in the research area of energy is 346 output. The research output consist of
Scopus-indexed international journals (126), international journals indexed by others (157),
intellectual property (27), appropriate technology (23), prototype (6), textbook (5) and
accredited national journals (2). The contribution of research output in the research area of
energy is mostly generated in the form of international journals, both indexed by Scopus
and others with a total contribution of 81%. Similar to the research output of the field of food
and agriculture, the outcome of research in energy, new and renewable energy is also limited
to the improvement of scientific productivity rather than research output oriented to
research commercialization such as intellectual property and appropriate technology. As
shown in mapping the research output if term of intellectual property, appropriate
technology and prototype/prototype as low as 15% of the total research output of
universities (Figure 5).
As shown in Figure 6, there four national universities that have the most output of
research in the field of energy. Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) has most output of 33
output. Then followed by Universitas Indonesia (UI) which has 30 output. Meanwhile, UGM
and Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember have 27 and 26 output, respectively (Figure 6).
3.1.3 Health and medicine. The number of the research output from universities in the
research area of health and medicine is 2,584 or 39% of the total research output from all
research areas undertaken. Based on these data, the research output of health and medicine
is the most research output produced by universities in Indonesia. The research output
consists of international journals indexed by Scopus (876), international journals indexed by
others (1,212), textbooks (187), accredited national journals (151), intellectual property (135),
appropriate technology (12) and prototype (11). The contribution of each research output to
the total output of research on health and medicine can be described as follows. The
contribution of health research output and medicines is mostly international journals, with a
total contribution of 81% (Figure 7).
However, the contribution of university research output is still largely dominated by
research output for scientific productivity improvement rather than output for
dissemination or commercialization of research results. Only 6% of university research
output are intellectual property and appropriate technology.
If viewed based on universities that produce research output in the field of health and
medicine then there are three national universities that produce the most output of research
in the field of health and medicine. The most productive university is UI with a total of 588

Figure 4.
Three universities
with the most
research output in the
research area of food
 Research
strength index

Figure 5.
The contribution of
types of research
outputs to total
output of research in
the field of energy in
university

Figure 6.
Four universities
with the most
research output in the
energy sector

Figure 7.
Contribution of types
of research outputs to
total output of
research in the field of
health and drugs in
university
JSTPM output, then followed by UGM with a total of 305 output. While Universitas Airlangga
produces research output as much as 243 output are in third (Figure 8).

3.2 Discussion: research strength index

Figure 9 shows the mapping of the research strength from 10 universities in the research
area of food. UGM is a university that has the largest cluster strength index of food research
with a value of 4.95, followed by IPB University and Universitas Brawijaya which has a
relatively equal cluster strength index of 1.93 and 1.92, respectively.
The food research cluster is dominated by seven universities located in Java Island
(UGM), IPB University (IPB), Universitas Brawijaya (Unibraw), ITB, UI, Universitas Sebelas
Maret (UNS), Universitas Diponegoro (Undip). However, there are also three universities
from outside Java Island that has a research strength in the research area of food, namely
Universitas Hasanuddin (Unhas), Universitas Udayana (Unud) and Universitas Andalas
(Unand).

Figure 8.
Three universities
with the most
research output in the
field of health and
medicine

Figure 9.
Ten universities with
the weighted value of
research output and
the strength index in
the research area of
food
The cluster of top ten universities that has the strength to conduct research activities in area Research
of energy are shown in Figure 10. Top ten national universities have the highest index value strength index
of research output and the largest cluster strength in the energy field of the research area.
ITB is a university that has the largest cluster strength index of energy research with a
value of 0.63. This is in line with the research output of the energy field produced by the
university, which has the most number among other national universities. Next is the UI
with the energy cluster energy field value index value of 0.47. UGM and Institut Teknologi
Sepuluh Nopember have relatively the same cluster strength index of 0.30 and 0.29
respectively ranks third and fourth.
If further observed, the cluster of research in the field of energy is dominated by
universities located in Java Island with eight universities (ITB, UI, UGM, Institut Teknologi
Sepuluh Nopember, Universitas Diponegoro, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Politeknik Negeri
Malang, Universitas Brawijaya). There are only two universities located outside Java Island
with the index of research strength of energy field big enough that is Universitas Sriwijaya
and Universitas Haluolelo.
The cluster strength index of health and medicine research can be shown in Figure 11.
Ten national universities have the highest value of research output and cluster strength
index in health and medicine. UI is a university that has the largest cluster strength index of
health and medicine research with a score of 2.06. Next is UGM with the value of cluster
strength index of 0.59. The Universitas Airlangga has a cluster strength index of 0.23. This
indicates that UI has a research strength in health and medicine which is quite dominant
compared to other universities, as indicated by the value of research cluster strength index
which is quite distant compared to other universities
Furthermore, the research cluster in health and medicine field is dominated by
universities located in Java Island with eight universities (UI, UGM, Universitas Airlangga,
Universitas Brawijaya ITB, Universitas Padjajaran, Universitas Diponegoro and
Universitas Sebelas Maret). There are only two universities from outside of Java, namely,
Hasanuddin University and Universitas Andalas.

Figure 10.
Ten universities with
weight output value
of research and the
largest cluster
strength index in the
energy sector
JSTPM

Figure 11.
Ten universities with
weighted value of
research output and
the largest cluster
strength index in the
field of health and
drugs

3.3 Implications and recommendations

Based on the results of the mapping of research clusters that have been described, to
encourage research performance, research clusters are institutionalized in the form of a
consortium, as a joint institutional vehicle practiced by numerous research institutions
worldwide, especially by research institutions in universities and business. Meanwhile, the
government’s initiative also supports the development of the consortium through an
incentive scheme in the form of funding for R&D institutions upon joining a research
consortium.
The formation of the consortium is intended for the collaboration of three or more
institutions consisting of government research institutions, university research institutions
and industries that cooperate and contribute in terms of resources (HR, facilities and
infrastructure and budget) in a joint research activity with focused outputs in accordance
with the priorities of the development of science and technology. Implementation of research
clusters for research consortiums are divided into two types of program orientation,
including consortium oriented to increasing scientific productivity and consortium oriented
to commercialization/downstreaming.
The implementation of research consortiums oriented towards increasing scientific
productivity is conducted based on trends in research themes produced by the researchers
published in international journals indexed by Scopus as well as food research themes, that
have been determined to focus on food research in the National Research Agenda as well as
the Master Plan of National Research. The development of the research consortium is
notified through the following achievement indicators: each consortium member produces at
least three publications (international journals, with publications indexed by Scopus Q1 and
National journals [Putera et al., 2021)]; total number of publications is two times of the
number of consortium members; registered patents are counted as achievement indicators.
Any intellectual property becomes the joint property of the researchers; and progress of
these indicators will be monitored through an annual monitoring and evaluation
mechanism. The implementation of this model research consortium is funded through a
funding model in the form of assignments based on the results of research clusters of
universities in Indonesia. The division of the budget within the consortium members is Research
based on the requirement of each topic. Funding for higher education will use the education strength index
allocation funds and research endowments.
The implementation of commercialization-oriented or downstream-oriented research
consortiums is conducted with cluster members by involving industry and R&D
institutions, designated as Science and Technology Excellence Centers. The consortium is
required to conduct research activities in collaboration with the private sector, and the
consortium members are determined by the consortium coordinator. The achieved
implementation of the commercialization/downstream oriented research consortium is
notified through the following indicators: in the first year, the consortium is expected to
issue patents resulting from product development (registered patents), including patents for
a number of consortium members and at least 1 patent for each member; in the second year,
products resulting from consortium research is expected to penetrate the market; and the
development of these indicators will be monitored through an annual monitoring and
evaluation mechanism. If the consortium members do not meet the results of the year-end
evaluation during the implementation of the Monev, the consortium membership might be
terminated. The implementation of this model research consortium is financed through a
funding model in the form of assignments based on the results of research clusters of
universities in Indonesia. The division of the budget within the consortium members is
based on the needs of each topic. Funding for higher education will use the education
allocation funds and research endowments. In addition, funding is also obtained through
industrial partners who are responsible for the production process, but partners are
exempted from licensing fees for using patents for a period according to the agreement of
consortium members.

4. Conclusions
This paper presents the study and discussion about the research strength of universities and
the following conclusions can be drawn: in the research area of food and agriculture, the
university with the highest research strength index is UGM with a value of 4.95, followed by
nine other universities, namely, IPB University, Universitas Brawijaya, ITB, UI, Universitas
Sebelas Maret, Universitas Hasanuddin, Universitas Diponegoro, Universitas Udayana and
Universitas Andalas; in the research area of energy, new energy and renewable energy, the
university with the highest research strength index is ITB with a value of 0.63, and the next
nine universities that have the highest energy and renewable energy strength are UI, UGM,
Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Universitas Diponegoro, Universitas Sebelas Maret,
Universitas Sriwijaya, Politeknik Negeri Malang, Universitas Brawijaya and Universitas
Halu Oleo; in the research area of health and medicines, the university that has the highest
research strength index is UI with a value of 2.06. The other nine universities that have the
highest index are UGM, Universitas Airlangga, Universitas Brawijaya, Universitas
Hasanuddin, Institute Teknologi Bandung, Universitas Padjajaran, Universitas Diponegoro,
Universitas Andalas and Universitas Sebelas Maret.

4.1 Managerial and theoretical implications

The mapping of the university research cluster strength index in the areas of food, energy
and health indicates that IPB University, Bandung Institute of Technology and University
of Indonesia have the strength as a leader in those research areas. The three universities
have equal advantages in all indicators ranging from IPR, Scopus-indexed international
journal, prototype, international journals indexed by other than Scopus, appropriate
technology, textbooks, to national journals.
JSTPM In the future, to improve performance and provide continuity in performance
achievement, it is deemed necessary to form a research consortium with two types of
program orientation, including a consortium oriented to increasing scientific productivity
and a consortium oriented to commercialization/downstreaming. This concept aims to
optimize the research role of university by providing incentive for research in the National
Research Priority areas and to prioritize an innovation. The mapping of university research
strengths proposed in this paper serves as the basis for efficiently managing the research
incentive.

4.2 Limitations and future research

This research has limitations, as it involves the 2016 data, leading to the possibility to
change the composition of the result calculation on the mapping and index of higher
education when using the latest data in 2020 or 2021. However, as a calculation model
remains possible, the authors suggest that future research is encouraged to use the latest
data and to perform the comparison calculations by applying additional indicators, based on
impact indicators such as the royalty value for the produced patents along (Enright and
Dalton, 2014; Tukoff-Guimarães et al., 2021) with other indicators.

References
Abramo, G. and D’Angelo, C.A. (2014), “How do you define and measure research productivity?”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 1129-1144, doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1269-8.
Abramo, G. and D’Angelo, C.A. (2015), “Evaluating university research: same performance indicator,
different rankings”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 514-525, doi: 10.1016/j.
joi.2015.04.002.
Ahmed, A. and Al-Roubaie, A. (2012), “Building a knowledge-based economy in the Muslim world: the
critical role of innovation and technological learning”, World Journal of Science, Technology and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 76-98, doi: 10.1108/20425941211244243.
Altvater-Mackensen, N., Balicki, G., Bestakowa, L., Bocatius, B., Braun, J., Brehmer, L., Brune, V.,
Eigemeier, K., Erdem, F., Fritscher, R., Jacobs, A., Klingsporn, B., Kosinski, M., Kuntze, J., Lee, J.-
R., Osterhage, A., Probost, M., Risch, T., Schmitt, T. and Werner, K. (2005), “Science and
technology in the region: the output of regional science and technology, its strengths and its
leading institutions”, Scientometrics, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 463-529, doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0225-z.
Ben Hassen, T. (2020), “The state of the knowledge-based economy in the Arab world: cases of Qatar
and Lebanon”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 129-153, doi: 10.1108/EMJB-03-
2020-0026.
Cheng, J.-L., Chu, Y.-P., Han, S.-F., Li, Y.-J. and Tan, Q. (2017), “Research and perspectives on criteria for
evaluation of nursing research achievements”, Chinese Nursing Research, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 107-112, doi: 10.1016/j.cnre.2017.06.001.
Dale, J. and Kyle, D. (2015), “Smart transitions? Foreign investment, disruptive technology, and
democratic reform in Myanmar”, Social Research: An International Quarterly, Vol. 82 No. 2,
pp. 291-326, available at: www.muse.jhu.edu/article/587493.
De Bra, P. (2000), “Using hypertext metrics to measure research output levels”, Scientometrics, Vol. 47
No. 2, pp. 227-236, doi: 10.1023/A:1005682808896.
Dimyati, M., Suhetris, Hunaefi, D., Siregar, I.Z., Pratama, R., Aprimadya, H., Cedaryana, Hendri, R.,
Widiastuti, I., Krisnandy, A.A., Kurniadi, B., Utami, D., Sulistyawan, A., Suri, D.A., Armaghani,
H., Bryan, T. and Nurfadhilah, E. (2019), “Membangun kerja sama penelitian menuju Indonesia
maju: Konsep pemantauan dan evaluasi kerja sama penelitian”, Kementerian Riset, Teknologi,
dan Pendidikan Tinggi, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Direktorat Riset dan Pengabdian Masyarakat, Deputi Bidang Penguatan Riset dan Pengembangan, K. Research
R. dan T./B. R. dan I. N (2020), “Panduan penelitian dan pengabdian kepada masyarakat: Edisi
XIII tahun 2020”, Direktorat Riset dan Pengabdian Masyarakat, Deputi Bidang Penguatan Riset
strength index
dan Pengembangan, Kementerian Riset dan Teknologi/Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional.
Dutta, S. Lanvin, B. and Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2017), “The global innovation index 2017: Innovation feeding
the world”, Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Dutta, S. Lanvin, B. and Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2020), “Global innovation index 2020: Who will finance
innovations”, In Law and innovations (Issue 1 (33)). Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World
Intellectual Property Organization, doi: 10.37772/2518-1718-2021-1(33)-1
Enright, S. and Dalton, M. (2014), “The impact of the patent cliff on Pharma-Chem output in ireland”,
Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, Vol. 43, pp. 91-113. (2013),
Etzkowitz, H. (2016), “The entrepreneurial university: Vision and metrics”, Industry and Higher
Education, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 83-97, doi: 10.5367/ihe.2016.0303.
Etzkowitz, H., Dzisah, J. and Clouser, M. (2021), “Shaping the entrepreneurial university: Two
experiments and a proposal for innovation in higher education”, Industry and Higher Education,
doi: 10.1177/0950422221993421, 0950422221993421.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B.R.C. (2000), “The future of the university and the
university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”, Research Policy,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 313-330, doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4.
Galabova, L. and Ahonen, G. (2011), “Is intellectual Capital-based strategy market-based or resource-
based?: on sustainable strategy in a knowledge-based economy”, Journal of Human Resource
Costing and Accounting, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 313-327, doi: 10.1108/14013381111197243.
Gomez-Núñez, A.J., Vargas-Quesada, B., de Moya-Anegon, F. and Glänzel, W. (2011), “Improving
SCImago journal and country rank (SJR) subject classification through reference analysis”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 89 No. 3, p. 741, doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0485-8.
Gustina, A., Putera, P., Kusuma, P.T.W.W., Hastanto, W.Y. and Kurniawati, W. (2020), “Functional
food in Indonesia: an analysis of legal and institutional framework”, IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 443 No. 1, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/443/1/012089.
Hadiwattege, C., Senaratne, S., Sandanayake, Y. and Fernando, N.G. (2018), “Academic research in
emerging knowledge-based economies: the case of Sri Lankan construction industry”, Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 415-428, doi: 10.1108/BEPAM-12-
2017-0134.
Hill, K. (2006), “University research and local economic development: a product of Arizona state
university’s productivity and prosperity project (P3)”, (Issue August), available at: www.
wpcarey.asu.edu/seid
Khanmirzaee, S., Jafari, M. and Akhavan, P. (2018), “A study on the role of science and technology parks
in development of knowledge-based economy”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management
and Sustainable Development, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 74-85, doi: 10.1108/wjemsd-05-2017-0021.
Knowledge Sector Initiative (2019), “Kajian kebijakan dana abadi penelitian: pandangan atas
pendanaan dan tata kelola kelembagaan”, (Issue November).
Krishna, V.V. (2019), “Universities in the national innovation systems: experiences from the Asia-
Pacific”, Universities in the National Innovation Systems: Experiences from the Asia-Pacific,
Vol. 5 No. 43, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.4324/9781315111421.
Lahikainen, K., Kolhinen, J., Ruskovaara, E. and Pihkala, T. (2018), “Challenges to the development of
an entrepreneurial university ecosystem: the case of a Finnish university campus”, Industry and
Higher Education, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 96-107, doi: 10.1177/0950422218815806.
Lazzeroni, M. and Piccaluga, A. (2003), “Towards the entrepreneurial university”, Local Economy: The
Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-48, doi: 10.1080/
0269094032000073807.
JSTPM Lukman, R., Krajnc, D. and Glavic, P. (2010), “University ranking using research, educational and
environmental indicators”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 619-628, doi: 10.1016/
j.jclepro.2009.09.015.
Markusova, V.A., Jansz, M., Libkind, A.N., Libkind, I. and Varshavsky, A. (2009), “Trends in Russian
research output in post-Soviet era”, Scientometrics, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 249-260, doi: 10.1007/
s11192-009-0416-0.
Meek, V.L. and van der Lee, J.J. (2005), “Performance indicators for assessing and benchmarking
research capacities in universities”, (Issue 2).
Mustangimah, M., Putera, P.B., Zulhamdani, M., Handoyo, S. and Rahayu, S. (2021), “Evaluation of the
Indonesia national strategic policy of science and technology development”, Journal of Science and
Technology Policy Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 421-442, doi: 10.1108/JSTPM-04-2020-0079.
Pavel, A. (2015), “Global university rankings - a comparative analysis”, Procedia Economics and
Finance, Vol. 26 No. 15, pp. 54-63, doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00838-2.
Powell, W.W. and Snellman, K. (2004), “The knowledge economy”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 199-220, doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037.
Putera, P.B., Suryanto, S., Ningrum, S., Widianingsih, I. and Rianto, Y. (2021), “Policies of scholarly
journal accreditation in Indonesia”, Science Editing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 166-171, doi: 10.6087/
kcse.250.
Reichert, S. (2019), “The role of universities in regional innovation ecosystems”, In European
University Association, (Issue March), available at: https://eua.eu/downloads/
publications/eua_innovation_ecosystem_report_2019-3-12.pdf
Rudd, E. (1988), “The evaluation of the quality of research”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 45-57, doi: 10.1080/03075078812331377955.
Sanadgol, S. and Dadfar, M. (2020), “Students’ evaluation of entrepreneurial university activities: a case
from the Iran university of medical sciences”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 446-450, doi: 10.1177/0950422220921142.
Scherzinger, G. and Bobbert, M. (2017), “Evaluation of research ethics committees: criteria for the
ethical quality of the review process”, Accountability in Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 152-176, doi:
10.1080/08989621.2016.1273778.
Sinha, G.R. (2018), “Innovation and research skill for knowledge-based economy of Myanmar: Current
status and recommendation”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 12
No. 3, doi: 10.1108/JSTPM-12-2017-0078.
Tukoff-Guimarães, Y.B., Kniess, C.T., Penha, R. and Ruiz, M.S. (2021), “Patents valuation in core
innovation: case study of a Brazilian public university”, Innovation and Management Review,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 34-50, doi: 10.1108/INMR-03-2019-0027.
Wynn, M. and Jones, P. (2017), “Knowledge transfer partnerships and the entrepreneurial university”,
Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 267-278, doi: 10.1177/0950422217705442.
Yao, W., Li, H. and Weng, M. (2018), “The role the university could play in an inclusive regional
innovation system”, Triple Helix, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1186/s40604-018-0058-4.

Corresponding author
Prakoso Bhairawa Putera can be contacted at: pb.putera@brin.go.id

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com