University Malaysia Terengganu

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

University Malaysia Terengganu presents a profile of notable strengths and specific, critical vulnerabilities. With an overall integrity score of 0.610, the institution demonstrates robust control in key areas, particularly in its commitment to external validation by avoiding institutional journals, maintaining a low rate of redundant publications, and ensuring a healthy balance between collaborative impact and internal leadership capacity. These strengths are foundational. However, this positive performance is overshadowed by a significant-risk rating in retracted output, which, coupled with medium-risk indicators for multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, signals systemic pressures that require immediate attention. The university's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in strategic areas such as Veterinary (3rd in Malaysia), Environmental Science (12th), Energy (12th), and Business, Management and Accounting (12th), is directly threatened by these integrity risks. The mission to generate "Knowledge for the Community's Affluence and Environmental Sustainability" is fundamentally undermined when the reliability of that knowledge is questioned. A high rate of retractions contradicts the core values of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and ensure its research genuinely contributes to society, it is imperative for the university to implement enhanced pre-publication quality assurance protocols and fortify its research integrity framework.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.452, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.097. Although both the university and the country fall within a medium-risk band, this comparison reveals a high exposure at the institutional level, suggesting it is more prone to this risk than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this elevated rate warrants a review of internal policies. It may signal a greater tendency toward strategic practices like "affiliation shopping" aimed at inflating institutional credit, a dynamic that, while common, appears more pronounced here and could dilute the institution's distinct academic identity.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.000, the institution is in a significant-risk category, starkly contrasting with the country's medium-risk average of 0.676. This indicates a critical risk accentuation, where the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but amplifying it to a severe degree. This high rate suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, a score this far above the norm alerts to a deep vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to prevent further reputational damage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.095, while the national average is 0.001. This disparity, occurring within the same medium-risk level, indicates a high exposure for the university. The data suggests that the institution is more prone to citing its own work than its national counterparts. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately higher rate could signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This poses a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be artificially magnified by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university shows a Z-score of 1.302 in this indicator, which is lower than the national average of 1.552. This demonstrates a case of differentiated management; while publishing in discontinued journals is a medium-level risk across the country, the institution appears to moderate this risk more effectively than its peers. This suggests a more rigorous, though not yet perfect, due diligence process in selecting publication venues. By being more discerning, the institution better mitigates the severe reputational risks associated with channeling research through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting its resources from predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.841 is nearly identical to the country's average of -0.880, placing both in a low-risk category. This alignment points to statistical normality, where the university's authorship patterns in large-scale collaborations are consistent with the national context. The low risk level indicates that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and problematic practices like honorary authorship, ensuring that author lists reflect genuine contributions and individual accountability is maintained.

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

With a Z-score of -0.035, the institution's risk is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.166. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While the minimal gap indicates strong internal capacity and suggests that scientific prestige is largely generated by institution-led research, the slight elevation compared to the national benchmark could be an early sign of growing dependency on external partners for impact. It serves as a prompt to continue fostering intellectual leadership to ensure that excellence remains structural and not contingent on external collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.798 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.121, placing it in a position of high exposure despite both being at a medium-risk level. This indicates that the university is far more prone to the risks associated with hyperprolific authors. Such extreme individual publication volumes challenge the perceived limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. This heightened risk points to the possibility of coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or authorship assignment without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and demand a review of authorship and productivity policies.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that stands in sharp contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 1.103. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution deliberately avoids a risk dynamic prevalent in its national environment. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the university strongly mitigates conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific output and signals a robust commitment to objective validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.180 (low risk) is significantly better than the national average of 0.143 (medium risk). This highlights a strong institutional resilience, where internal controls and culture appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. The low score suggests that the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity—is not a common issue. This indicates a culture that values the generation of significant, coherent knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication metrics, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.