| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.509 | 0.097 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.493 | 0.676 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.358 | 0.001 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.752 | 1.552 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.196 | -0.880 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.522 | -0.166 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.519 | 0.121 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.750 | 1.103 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.163 | 0.143 |
The University of Malaysia, Pahang, demonstrates a solid overall performance (Score: 0.648) characterized by significant strengths in research governance and clear areas for strategic enhancement. The institution exhibits exemplary control over authorship practices, with very low risk in hyper-authored output and a minimal gap in impact between collaborative and institution-led research, indicating strong internal scientific leadership. However, this profile is contrasted by a critical alert regarding the high rate of publication in discontinued journals, which poses a substantial reputational risk. This primary vulnerability is accompanied by medium-level risks in institutional self-citation and the prevalence of hyperprolific authors. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are notable, with top-10 national rankings in key areas such as Physics and Astronomy (8th), Earth and Planetary Sciences (9th), Energy (9th), and Engineering (10th). These achievements are directly challenged by the identified integrity risks; the commitment to "world class education, research and services" as stated in the mission is undermined when a significant portion of output appears in low-quality or predatory venues. To fully align its operational practices with its ambitious vision for societal good, the University should prioritize enhancing its due diligence processes for publication channels, thereby ensuring its powerful research capacity is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.509, the institution displays a low-risk profile that contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.097 (medium risk). This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates a robust governance framework that discourages strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensures that institutional credit is claimed appropriately, reflecting genuine collaborative contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.493 (medium risk) is notably lower than the national average of 0.676 (medium risk), indicating a differentiated management of this issue. Although not immune to the challenges that lead to retractions, the university appears to moderate risks that are more common across the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. The university's relative success in containing this rate suggests its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are more effective than the national standard, though continued vigilance is necessary to reinforce methodological rigor and prevent potential malpractice.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.358, which, while categorized as a medium risk, signals high exposure when compared to the national average of 0.001. This disparity suggests the university is more prone to practices of internal validation than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate warns of the potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend risks creating an endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
This indicator represents a critical alert, with the institution's Z-score of 2.752 (significant risk) far exceeding the country's medium-risk average of 1.552. This pattern shows a clear risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This situation suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary Z-score of -1.196 (very low risk), which is even stronger than the country's already low-risk profile of -0.880. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for responsible authorship. This score indicates that the university's authorship practices are transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the dilutive effects of 'honorary' or inflated author lists. This reinforces a culture where individual accountability is maintained.
With a Z-score of -1.522 (very low risk), the institution significantly outperforms the national average of -0.166 (low risk), demonstrating exceptional scientific autonomy. This low-profile consistency, where risk signals are virtually absent, points to a highly sustainable research model. The score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This reflects a mature research ecosystem where excellence is structural and generated from within, rather than being a byproduct of collaborations where the institution does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of 0.519 (medium risk) indicates high exposure to this risk factor, as it is considerably above the national average of 0.121. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can evidence leadership, publication rates exceeding 50 articles a year often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of 0.750 (medium risk) reflects a more controlled approach compared to the national average of 1.103. This demonstrates differentiated management, where the university moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university's more moderate rate suggests a healthier balance, but it remains a key area for monitoring to prevent academic endogamy and ensure that internal channels do not bypass independent external peer review or serve as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.163 (low risk), the institution shows strong institutional resilience against a practice that poses a medium-level risk nationally (country score: 0.143). This negative score indicates that the university's control mechanisms and academic culture effectively discourage data fragmentation. This is a sign of a healthy research environment that prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of productivity through 'salami slicing.' By avoiding this practice, the institution upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and shows respect for the academic review system.
