| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.639 | 0.097 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | 0.676 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.495 | 0.001 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.090 | 1.552 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.812 | -0.880 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.470 | -0.166 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.802 | 0.121 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
4.766 | 1.103 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.426 | 0.143 |
The International Islamic University Malaysia demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile, characterized by a dual dynamic of commendable control over individual research behaviors and emerging strategic challenges in its publication and impact model. With an overall score of 0.452, the institution shows significant strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, retractions, and hyperprolific authorship, indicating a robust internal culture of accountability. The university's academic excellence is particularly notable in key areas identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings, including top-tier national rankings in Dentistry (6th), Arts and Humanities (8th), Mathematics (8th), and Computer Science (9th). However, this profile is contrasted by medium-risk indicators related to a dependency on institutional journals, a gap in impact leadership, and the use of discontinued publication channels. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the institutional mission of "Comprehensive Excellence" and "Internationalisation," as they suggest a potential disconnect between internal productivity and validated global impact. To fully align its scientific practices with its ambitious mission, the university is advised to leverage its foundational strengths in research integrity to develop a more outward-facing, internationally-aligned publication strategy that enhances its global visibility and leadership.
The institution demonstrates strong control over affiliation practices, with a Z-score of -0.639, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.097. This suggests that effective institutional mechanisms are in place, providing resilience against the systemic risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's prudent approach successfully prevents potential inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” thereby reinforcing a culture of clear and transparent academic contribution.
The university maintains a retraction rate well below the national trend, with a Z-score of -0.259 compared to the country's 0.676. This indicates robust institutional resilience, suggesting that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks that lead to publication withdrawals across the country. A rate significantly lower than the average is a positive signal of a healthy integrity culture, where potential methodological flaws or malpractice are addressed prior to publication, safeguarding the institution's scientific record from systemic failures.
With an institutional self-citation rate significantly lower than the national median (Z-score of -0.495 versus 0.001), the university demonstrates a strong capacity to avoid the insular dynamics present in its environment. This suggests its research is validated by the broader international community rather than relying on internal 'echo chambers.' By maintaining this low rate, the institution effectively mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is a result of genuine global recognition and not disproportionately shaped by internal validation dynamics.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score of 1.090) is a point of concern, yet it reflects a more controlled approach compared to the national average (Z-score of 1.552). This suggests that while the university is not immune to the national trend of publishing in low-quality venues, its management practices appear to moderate this risk more effectively than its peers. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university's rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score of -0.812) is low and closely aligned with the national standard (Z-score of -0.880), but shows a slight upward signal that warrants attention. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that, if left unmonitored, could escalate. When the pattern of extensive author lists appears outside 'Big Science' contexts, it can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal serves as a prompt to proactively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the emergence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The university presents a notable gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role (Z-score of 0.470), a moderate deviation from the national standard where this gap is not a concern (Z-score of -0.166). This indicates the institution is more sensitive than its peers to a dependency on external collaborators for achieving high-impact results. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites reflection on whether excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university exhibits a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors (Z-score of -0.802), showcasing institutional resilience against a risk factor that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.121). This indicates that the university's culture and oversight mechanisms effectively discourage practices that prioritize quantity over quality. Since extreme individual publication volumes can point to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' this low rate suggests the institution is successfully mitigating these dynamics and protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The university shows a significantly higher rate of publication in its own institutional journals (Z-score of 4.766) compared to the national average (Z-score of 1.103). This high exposure indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to the risks associated with this practice. While in-house journals are valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest, as the institution acts simultaneously as judge and party. This high value warns of the risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and creating 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of 0.426, the university demonstrates a higher exposure to redundant publication practices than the national average (Z-score of 0.143). This suggests the institution is more susceptible to the fragmentation of research findings. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications usually indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.
