Lecturer Academic Performance: A Descriptive Review

One of the challenges of tertiary institutions at present is the progressiveness of lecturers' academic performance. Higher education institutions whose progress in academic performance will certainly show the quality level of the tertiary institution. This research presents the academic performance of lecturers in tertiary institutions. The aim of this study is to describe academic lecturers which based academic publish in google scholar. The research approach used is descriptive qualitative method because this study prioritizes verbal exposure. The data used is documentary based which is obtained from the google scholar database. Data analysis techniques use stages in a qualitative approach: identification, classification, and data analysis. The results showed that the highest number of publications was Post Graduate (PPs), while the lowest number of publications was (Sport Science Faculty) FIO. Based on these results, it proved that Post Graduate (PPs) dominated in terms of the number of publications because Post Graduate (PPs) is dominated by lecturers with higher academic levels.


Table 1 Data based on Google Scholar per Faculty 2017
Based on table 1 it appears that PPS ranks highest in publications. The second sequence of publications is FMIPA. The third place is occupied by FT. The fourth sequence is occupied by the FIS. The fifth rank is occupied by FE, followed by FIP in the sixth position. Seventh is occupied by FIO and finally FBS.
The academic performance of lecturers related to publications indexed by Google Scholar in 2018 is as follows. FBS has 109 publications; FE has 112 publications; FIO 30 works; FIP has 30 publications; FIS has 103 publications; Mathematics and Natural Sciences 335; PPs have a total of 558 publications; FT has a number of publications of 158. If visualized, the academic performance of the lecturer can be seen in the following visualization.

Table 2 Data based on Google Scholar per Faculty 2018
Based on table 2 it appears that PPS ranks highest in publications. The second sequence of publications is FMIPA. The third place is occupied by the FIS. The fourth sequence is occupied by FT. The fifth was occupied by FE, followed by FBS in sixth position. Seventh is occupied by FIP and finally FIO.
The academic performance of lecturers relating to publications indexed by Google Scholar in 2019 is as follows. FBS has 41 publications; FE has 53 publications; FIO 9 works; FIP has 35 publications; FIS has 127 publications; MIPA 139; PPs have 174 publications; FT has a number of publications of 1. If visualized, the academic performance of the lecturer can be seen in the following visualization.

Table 3 Data based on Google Scholar per Faculty 2019
Based on table 3 it appears that PPS ranks highest in publications. The second sequence of publications is FMIPA. The third place is occupied by the FIS. The fourth sequence is occupied by FT. The fifth was occupied by FE, followed by FBS in sixth position. Seventh is occupied by FIP and finally FIO.
Associated with academic performance data of lecturers indexed by Sinta (Science and Technology Index). Sinta is a database of academic portals in Indonesia. in it contains data about lecturers, publication data, book data, journal data, citation data, IPR data, and those related to the academic context. The data in Sinta is open access data that can be seen by everyone (Ahmadi, 2019). Thus, the general public or academic community can get information easily from Sprott. However, in this study researchers did not use Sinta as a database because the database derived from Sinta was taken from Google Scholar.

Conclusions
From google scholar data, it can be seen that PPS has the highest number of academic publications among other faculties (note: in this case, PPS is equivalent to faculty). FMIPA ranks second in ranking the number of academic publications. The third place is occupied by the FIS. As for the order with the least amount of publication, FIO. Even from 2017 to 2019 FIO has decreased which can be quite drastic. In addition to all of these things, data from Google Scholar shows that a lot of data is obtained that is significant enough to find out how much productivity each faculty has.