| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.904 | 0.097 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | 0.676 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.763 | 0.001 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.391 | 1.552 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.908 | -0.880 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.093 | -0.166 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.983 | 0.121 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.103 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.086 | 0.143 |
INTI International University & Colleges demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.897, characterized by significant strengths in research integrity and leadership, alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic attention. The institution excels in fostering genuine intellectual leadership, as evidenced by the high impact of its self-led research, and maintains commendable independence from endogamous publication practices. However, this profile of integrity is contrasted by significant-risk indicators in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Psychology, Arts and Humanities, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. These high-risk practices directly challenge the institutional mission to provide "international, innovative and individualised education," as publishing in predatory journals undermines international credibility and innovation, while hyper-prolificity questions the depth and individuality of scholarly contributions. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the university leverage its proven capacity for internal quality control to implement stricter guidelines on publication venue selection and authorship ethics, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its commitment to excellence is reflected across all facets of its research enterprise.
The institution's Z-score of 0.904 is notably higher than the national average of 0.097, indicating a greater exposure to the risks associated with this practice. This suggests that the university is more prone than its national peers to dynamics that can lead to inflated institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the elevated rate here serves as a signal to review whether these affiliations consistently represent substantive partnerships or if they are being used strategically for “affiliation shopping,” a practice that can dilute the institution's distinct academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national Z-score of 0.676, which signals a broader systemic risk. This favorable result suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the factors that lead to retractions elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions indicates that quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust, reflecting a responsible integrity culture where unintentional errors are corrected and potential malpractice is prevented systemically.
The institution's Z-score of 0.763 reveals a high exposure to this risk indicator, standing in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.001. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate warns of a potential scientific 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern signals a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 3.391 is a critical alert that accentuates a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score 1.552). This extremely high value indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and due diligence among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.908 is in close alignment with the country's Z-score of -0.880, reflecting a state of statistical normality. This indicates that the risk level associated with hyper-authorship is as expected for its context and size, with no evidence of widespread author list inflation. The university's authorship patterns in terms of collaboration size are consistent with national norms, suggesting that practices related to 'honorary' or political authorship are not a systemic issue.
The institution shows exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -2.093, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and aligning with a secure national standard (Z-score -0.166). This strong negative score is a positive indicator, signifying that the impact of research led directly by the institution is high and self-sufficient. It confirms that the university's scientific prestige is structural and derives from its real internal capacity, rather than being dependent on strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 2.983, the institution critically accentuates a vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score 0.121). This high indicator is a significant red flag, as extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. It alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and require immediate qualitative verification.
The institution demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, with a Z-score of -0.268 that contrasts sharply with the national trend toward this risk (Z-score 1.103). This result shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, effectively avoiding potential conflicts of interest by not depending on its own journals for publication. This commitment to independent external peer review limits the risk of academic endogamy and ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility.
The institution exhibits differentiated management of this risk, with a Z-score of 0.086 that is below the national average of 0.143. This indicates that the university is effectively moderating a risk that appears more common in the country. The lower tendency toward massive bibliographic overlap suggests a culture that discourages the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units. This approach prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, which is a sign of a healthy research environment.
