University of Malaysia Kelantan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Malaysia Kelantan demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.867, reflecting a robust foundation in research integrity combined with specific, high-priority areas for strategic intervention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its excellent management of authorship practices, its low dependence on institutional journals, and its effective mitigation of several systemic risks prevalent at the national level, such as hyperprolific authorship and multiple affiliations. However, this positive profile is critically undermined by a significant rate of retracted publications, which represents the most urgent challenge to its scientific reputation. Moderate risks in institutional self-citation and redundant output also warrant attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these operational dynamics support and challenge an institution with clear thematic strengths, evidenced by its high national rankings in Veterinary (5th), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (10th), and Arts and Humanities (12th). The University's mission to provide "high quality" research and "fulfill social obligation" is directly contradicted by the high rate of retractions, which signals a potential gap in quality assurance. To fully align its practices with its mission, the University should leverage its evident strengths in governance to implement targeted interventions aimed at reinforcing pre-publication quality control and fostering a culture of rigorous, externally validated research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Malaysia Kelantan shows a low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.346), demonstrating effective control in an area where the national context presents a medium risk (Z-score: 0.097). This suggests the presence of strong institutional resilience, where internal governance and clear policies appear to successfully mitigate broader systemic risks. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University’s prudent management in this area indicates that its collaborative practices are well-regulated, preventing the potential for "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's rate of retracted output is a significant concern, with a Z-score of 2.409 that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.676. This finding suggests that the University is not merely reflecting a national vulnerability but is actively amplifying it. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm alerts to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's reputation and its commitment to producing reliable science.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of 0.214, the University's rate of institutional self-citation is higher than the national average (Z-score: 0.001), despite both being classified within a medium-risk band. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone than its national peers to developing 'echo chambers.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting focused research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of potential endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community, signaling a need for greater external engagement and scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University demonstrates effective, differentiated management regarding publication in discontinued journals. Its Z-score of 1.372 is notably lower than the national average of 1.552, indicating that it successfully moderates a risk that is common within the country. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The University's better-than-average performance suggests its researchers exercise greater caution, but the medium-risk level still indicates a need for continued vigilance and information literacy to avoid channeling resources toward 'predatory' or low-quality publications that pose a reputational threat.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a prudent profile in hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -0.970 that is even lower than the national standard (Z-score: -0.880). This indicates that its authorship attribution processes are managed with more rigor than the national norm. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can signal author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The University's low score in this area is a positive sign of good governance, suggesting a culture that values meaningful contribution over the inclusion of 'honorary' authors and promotes transparency in research collaboration.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The University exhibits a prudent profile, with a Z-score of -0.635, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.166. This indicates that the institution manages its research leadership with more rigor than the national standard. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The University's negative score is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy, suggesting that its most impactful research is driven by its own intellectual leadership. This reflects a healthy, sustainable model where excellence is structural and generated from within, rather than being a byproduct of collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a low Z-score of -0.013, the University effectively counters the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (Z-score: 0.121), showcasing institutional resilience. This suggests that its control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The University’s low rate indicates a healthy research culture that likely discourages practices such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a very low rate of output in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268), in stark contrast to the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 1.103). This indicates a successful preventive isolation from a common risk dynamic. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice strengthens the credibility of its research by ensuring it undergoes independent external peer review, enhances its global visibility, and avoids the perception of using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication, thereby reinforcing its commitment to competitive academic validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University shows differentiated management of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' with a Z-score of 0.041 that is considerably lower than the national average of 0.143. This performance indicates that the institution is actively moderating a research integrity risk that is more common in the country. This practice, which involves dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity, distorts scientific evidence. The University's more controlled rate suggests an institutional emphasis on publishing significant, coherent findings over sheer volume, reflecting a healthier approach to scientific communication and a respect for the research ecosystem.