| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.084 | -0.674 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.024 | 0.065 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.096 | 1.821 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
6.632 | 3.408 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.854 | -0.938 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.263 | -0.391 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.484 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.189 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.068 | -0.207 |
Hang Tuah University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by commendable strengths in authorial practices and significant vulnerabilities in citation and publication strategies. With an overall risk score of 1.315, the institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating a healthy research culture free from academic endogamy and authorship inflation. However, this positive performance is contrasted by critical alerts in the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation and, most notably, the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which pose a direct threat to its reputational standing. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic areas include Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Social Sciences. The identified risks, particularly the reliance on discontinued journals and potential citation echo chambers, fundamentally challenge the university's mission to produce human resources meeting "international quality standards" and achieve "global competitive advantage." Addressing these integrity gaps is not merely a compliance exercise but a strategic imperative to ensure that the institution's research excellence is both genuine and globally recognized, thereby safeguarding its long-term mission.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.084, slightly higher than the national average of -0.674. This result suggests a statistical normality in affiliation practices, but also points to an incipient vulnerability. While the risk level is low and broadly aligned with the national context, the university shows slightly more activity in this area than its peers. It is important to ensure that these affiliations, which are often legitimate outcomes of collaboration, do not evolve into strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." Continuous monitoring is advisable to maintain this indicator within a healthy operational range and prevent it from escalating.
With a Z-score of -0.024, the institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national average of 0.065, which indicates a medium risk level. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. The low rate of retractions indicates that quality control processes prior to publication are robust and that the institutional culture promotes methodological rigor. This performance is a sign of a healthy and responsible research environment, where potential errors are managed proactively, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of 3.096 is a significant alert, sharply accentuating the vulnerability already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 1.821. This disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation, potentially creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. Such a high value warns of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the university's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community. This practice undermines the pursuit of objective, externally validated knowledge and requires strategic intervention to foster broader engagement.
The university's Z-score of 6.632 in this indicator constitutes a global red flag, positioning it as a leader in risk metrics within a country already facing a critical situation (national average of 3.408). This extremely high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent, systemic need for enhanced information literacy and stricter publication policies to avoid wasting resources on predatory or low-quality venues.
The institution's Z-score of -0.854 is closely aligned with the national average of -0.938, indicating a low-risk profile. However, the university's score is slightly higher, suggesting an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While the current level does not indicate systemic issues with author list inflation, it is a signal to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship practices. Maintaining transparency and clear criteria for authorship will be key to ensuring this indicator remains in a low-risk category and does not develop into a more significant concern.
A moderate deviation is observed with the institution's Z-score of 1.263, which stands in contrast to the low-risk national average of -0.391. This result indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. The positive gap suggests that a significant portion of the institution's measured impact comes from publications where it does not hold a leadership role. This signals a potential sustainability risk, as its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than built upon its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency with a Z-score of -1.413, which is well below the national average of -0.484. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns perfectly with the national standard and points to a healthy research environment. This very low score indicates that the university fosters a culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume. It suggests an absence of problematic dynamics such as coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation, reflecting a commendable balance that supports meaningful intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a pattern of preventive isolation from the risks observed at the national level, where the average score of 0.189 indicates a medium risk. This very low rate demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility, and confirming that internal channels are not used to bypass standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.068, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.207, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the university's practices are generally sound, it shows slightly more signals of potential data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' than its peers. This practice, which involves dividing a study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, can distort the scientific evidence base. Although not currently a major issue, this indicator warrants review to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
