Islamic Science University of Malaysia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Islamic Science University of Malaysia demonstrates a robust and well-managed scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.056. This indicates a performance that is not only stable but also slightly stronger than the baseline, characterized by a commendable absence of significant risk signals across most indicators. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship, minimal dependence on institutional journals, and a negligible gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. These factors point to a culture of responsible authorship and sustainable, internally-driven research excellence. The only notable area for improvement is a medium-risk signal in publications within discontinued journals, which slightly exceeds the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's academic strengths are particularly pronounced in fields such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 4th in Malaysia) and Dentistry (ranked 7th in Malaysia), showcasing focused areas of high-impact research. This strong integrity posture directly supports the University's mission to produce "competent intellectual, leaders and professional based on...noble values," as ethical research conduct is the foundation of intellectual competence and leadership. However, the risk associated with discontinued journals could indirectly challenge this mission by potentially aligning institutional output with channels that lack rigor, thereby undermining the pursuit of "universal good." To further solidify its position, the University is advised to enhance its guidance on selecting high-quality publication venues, ensuring its research dissemination strategy fully aligns with its excellent internal standards and core values.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University shows a Z-score of -0.505, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.097. This contrast suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation practices that are more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the University’s controlled rate demonstrates a clear and transparent approach, successfully avoiding any signals that might be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.221, the University maintains a rate of retractions well below the national average (Z-score: 0.676). This favorable position indicates effective institutional resilience, suggesting that the University's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are more robust than the national standard. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign of methodological rigor and a healthy integrity culture. The institution's performance demonstrates that its processes are successfully filtering out potential issues, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a higher incidence of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University’s Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.621, a value that sits comfortably below the national average (Z-score: 0.001). This demonstrates strong institutional resilience against the risk of endogamous practices. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University’s low rate confirms its research is validated by the broader scientific community, not just within an internal 'echo chamber.' This performance indicates that the institution's academic influence is built on external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into the global research landscape.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University's Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals presents an area for attention, with a Z-score of 1.853 that is higher than the national average of 1.552. This suggests a high exposure to this risk, indicating the institution is more prone to this alert signal than its peers. This metric constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The University's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.837, which is almost identical to the national average of -0.880. This alignment points to a state of statistical normality, where the institution's practices regarding large-scale collaborations are consistent with the expectations for its context and size. The low score for both the institution and the country indicates that authorship practices are generally well-managed, with no significant signs of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability that can occur when this metric is high outside of 'Big Science' contexts.

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

The University exhibits a Z-score of -0.952, a very low value that contrasts favorably with the national score of -0.166. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. A minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and internally driven, not dependent on external partners for impact. This result is a strong indicator of sustainable research capacity, reflecting that the University's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the University shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.121. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This exceptionally low value is a strong positive indicator, suggesting a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity and is free from practices like coercive or honorary authorship. It reinforces that the institution fosters a balanced and sustainable approach to academic productivity, upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is exceptionally low, particularly when compared to the national average of 1.103, which signals a medium-risk trend. This significant difference highlights a pattern of preventive isolation, where the institution consciously avoids the risks of academic endogamy prevalent in the wider system. By not depending on in-house journals, the University ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and credibility. This practice demonstrates a commitment to competitive validation and avoids potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University’s rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' is low, with a Z-score of -0.426, which is notably better than the national average of 0.143. This performance suggests strong institutional resilience, as the University's research practices appear to be well-controlled and effectively mitigate the risk of data fragmentation seen more broadly in the country. This low indicator signals that the institution promotes the publication of coherent, significant studies over artificially inflating productivity by dividing work into minimal publishable units, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.