Tenaga National University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Tenaga National University presents a complex integrity profile with an overall risk score of 1.173, indicating areas of notable strength offset by significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust scientific independence and integrity in key areas, particularly its very low risk in the Gap between its total impact and the impact of its self-led research, and its minimal reliance on institutional journals. These strengths suggest a culture that fosters genuine intellectual leadership and avoids academic endogamy. However, this is critically undermined by a significant rate of retracted output, which represents the most urgent challenge to its scientific reputation. Additional medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant output suggest a systemic pressure for productivity that may be compromising quality. These integrity risks stand in direct contrast to the institution's stated mission to "advance knowledge and learning experience through research and innovation that will best serve human society," as practices that lead to retractions or questionable authorship directly impede the creation of reliable knowledge. The University's strong positioning in strategic areas, such as its national Top 10 ranking in Energy according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation of excellence. To protect and build upon this, it is imperative to implement enhanced pre-publication quality assurance protocols and author training programs, ensuring its innovative capacity is matched by an unwavering commitment to scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.660, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.097. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution's higher score suggests it is more prone to the factors driving this risk. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This heightened exposure warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure they transparently reflect genuine, substantive collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping" to maximize institutional metrics.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 2.719, the institution shows a critically high rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.676. This discrepancy suggests the university is not only part of a national system with some vulnerabilities but is actively amplifying them. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm is a severe alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This indicator points to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific credibility.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates a Z-score of -0.658, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.001. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic insularity observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers.' The university's prudent profile in this area indicates that its work is validated through sufficient external scrutiny, reinforcing the idea that its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.581 is nearly identical to the national average of 1.552, placing both in a medium-risk category. This alignment indicates that the university's behavior reflects a systemic pattern, likely tied to shared practices or information gaps at a national level regarding the selection of publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence. This shared vulnerability suggests that a significant portion of scientific production, both at the institutional and national levels, is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, posing reputational risks and highlighting a need for improved information literacy.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.960, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national standard, which has a score of -0.880. Both scores are in the low-risk range, but the university's lower value suggests it manages authorship practices with slightly more rigor than its national peers. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of accountability. The institution's controlled rate suggests a healthy distinction between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' authorship, reflecting a commitment to transparency in crediting contributions.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.150, a very low-risk value that is significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.166. This strong performance indicates an absence of risk signals related to dependency on external partners for impact. A high positive gap in this area would suggest that scientific prestige is exogenous and not structural. However, the university's excellent score demonstrates the opposite: its high-impact research is predominantly driven by its own intellectual leadership, signaling a sustainable and robust internal capacity for generating world-class science.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 1.194 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.121, despite both falling within the medium-risk category. This suggests the university is more exposed to the pressures that lead to hyperprolificity than its national counterparts. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This heightened institutional signal alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing'—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that marks a clear and positive separation from the national medium-risk average of 1.103. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and limit global visibility. The university's minimal use of such channels indicates its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its commitment to competitive, global-standard validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.428, the institution's rate of redundant output is higher than the national average of 0.143. As both are classified as medium-risk, this indicates the university is more prone to this behavior than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's higher exposure suggests a need to reinforce editorial policies and author guidelines to prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.