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

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.