University of Malaysia, Perlis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Malaysia, Perlis, demonstrates a mixed integrity profile with an overall score of 0.628, characterized by areas of exceptional strength alongside specific, significant vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits robust performance and very low risk in critical areas such as the Rate of Retracted Output, Hyper-Authored Output, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating effective quality control and a healthy approach to authorship and dissemination. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by a significant risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and medium-risk signals that are higher than the national average in Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These challenges, particularly the use of questionable publication venues, directly threaten the university's mission "to produce a holistic human that contributes to the nation’s development and industrial competitiveness agenda." Compromised research integrity undermines industrial trust and wastes resources, contradicting the goal of national contribution. This profile is notable given the university's strong national standing in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Physics and Astronomy, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Computer Science. To safeguard its academic reputation and fully align with its mission, the university should leverage its foundational strengths to implement targeted policies addressing publication strategies and authorship ethics, thereby ensuring its contributions are both innovative and unimpeachably sound.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.172, which, while within the medium-risk category, is notably higher than the national average of 0.097. This suggests that the university is more exposed to this risk factor than its peers within a country where this practice is already common. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's higher rate indicates a potential strategic use to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This heightened exposure warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that all affiliations are transparent, justified by substantive collaboration, and do not create misleading impressions of the university's research footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.512, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, effectively isolating itself from the moderate risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.676). This result indicates the presence of robust quality control mechanisms prior to publication. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, an extremely low rate like this one strongly suggests that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are successfully preventing the systemic failures that can lead to such outcomes. This performance is a clear strength, reflecting a commitment to producing reliable and verifiable scientific work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university shows a Z-score of 0.715 for institutional self-citation, a figure that places it in the medium-risk category and indicates a higher exposure compared to the national average (Z-score of 0.001). This suggests that the institution is more prone than its national counterparts to forming 'echo chambers' where its work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University of Malaysia, Perlis, presents a Z-score of 3.268 in this indicator, a value that is not only in the significant risk category but also sharply accentuates the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 1.552). This situation suggests that the institution is far more susceptible than its national peers to channeling research into questionable publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being directed towards media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy programs to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.131 for hyper-authored output is firmly in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a healthier profile than the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.880. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's authorship practices are well-aligned with international norms of transparency and accountability. The absence of risk signals in this area suggests that the institution successfully avoids the inflation of author lists, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and that individual contributions remain clear, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative research.

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

With a Z-score of -1.561, the university shows a very low-risk profile in this indicator, contrasting favorably with the country's low-risk Z-score of -0.166. This result demonstrates a strong alignment with national standards of research autonomy and leadership. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity, rather than being dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This indicates a sustainable model of impact, where the university is not only a participant but also a driver of high-quality research.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of 1.607 for hyperprolific authors is in the medium-risk range and shows a high exposure to this phenomenon compared to the national average of 0.121. This indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to hosting authors with extreme publication volumes that challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This pattern 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. It highlights a need to review institutional incentives to ensure they prioritize scientific integrity over sheer publication metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution records a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low rate of publication in its own journals and demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the moderate-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score of 1.103). This excellent result shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive, merit-based validation of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 1.526, the university displays a medium-risk level for redundant output, indicating a significantly higher exposure to this practice than the national average (Z-score of 0.143). This suggests the institution is more prone to research fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' than its peers. This high value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a tendency not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling a need to shift focus from publication volume toward the generation of significant, consolidated new knowledge.