| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.841 | 0.097 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.972 | 0.676 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.042 | 0.001 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.583 | 1.552 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.022 | -0.880 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.049 | -0.166 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.317 | 0.121 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.103 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.982 | 0.143 |
Tun Hussein Onn University of Malaysia demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile with a score of 0.659, characterized by significant strengths in managing authorship practices and institutional publication channels. The institution exhibits commendable control over multiple affiliations, self-citation, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolificacy, consistently outperforming national averages in these areas. This operational rigor aligns well with its strong academic positioning, particularly in key thematic areas such as Mathematics, Computer Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive outlook is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities in post-publication integrity and dissemination quality, specifically a significant rate of retracted output and medium-risk levels for publishing in discontinued journals and redundant output. These challenges directly threaten the university's mission to "generate and disseminate knowledge" credibly, as they can undermine the trust of industry and community partners. To fully realize its commitment to nurturing "creative and innovative human capital," it is imperative to address these integrity gaps, ensuring that the knowledge produced is not only plentiful but also robust, reliable, and ethically sound.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.841, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.097. This suggests that the university has effective control mechanisms in place that successfully mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation management observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility, the institution's low rate indicates a well-governed environment that avoids the potential for strategic “affiliation shopping” or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, thereby maintaining clear and transparent academic contributions.
With a Z-score of 0.972, the institution's rate of retracted output is significantly higher than the national average of 0.676, indicating an urgent area for review. This suggests the university may be amplifying vulnerabilities present in the national system regarding research quality control. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its academic reputation.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.042, contrasting favorably with the national average of 0.001. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university avoids the trend of endogamous citation practices seen at the national level. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, the institution's low rate confirms that its work is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than within an insular 'echo chamber,' ensuring that its academic influence is a result of genuine recognition by the global community and not an inflation of impact through internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 2.583 for output in discontinued journals is considerably higher than the national average of 1.552, even though both are in a medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to reputational risk, suggesting the university is more prone than its national peers to selecting problematic dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It 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 and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -1.022 for hyper-authored output, which is lower than the national average of -0.880. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its authorship attribution processes with more rigor than the national standard. This low indicator confirms that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability. This helps maintain transparency and integrity in its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.049, which, while low, is higher than the national average of -0.166. This points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A very wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. Although the current value is not alarming, this subtle signal invites reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics are consistently driven by its own intellectual leadership or if there is a growing reliance on collaborations where it does not lead, a potential risk to long-term scientific sustainability.
With a Z-score of -0.317, the university demonstrates strong performance in managing hyperprolific authorship, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.121. This indicates institutional resilience against the pressures that can lead to questionable productivity metrics. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 1.103. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable, the institution's minimal reliance on them avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production overwhelmingly undergoes independent external peer review, maximizing global visibility and competitive validation.
The university's Z-score for redundant output is 0.982, a figure that shows high exposure to this risk and is significantly above the national average of 0.143. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices that artificially inflate productivity. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications usually indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This high value alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units, a behavior that distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system by prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge.
