National University of Mongolia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National University of Mongolia demonstrates a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional control alongside a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. With an overall score of 0.486, the institution exhibits robust governance in preventing hyperprolific authorship, redundant publications, and excessive reliance on institutional journals, aligning perfectly with a secure national standard in these areas. This foundation of integrity supports its leadership position, evidenced by its top national ranking in key disciplines such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Earth and Planetary Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong performance is severely undermined by a significant rate of retracted output, which directly challenges the university's mission to "become a national model research University which meets world standards." This specific risk, coupled with a moderate tendency towards institutional self-citation, suggests that while the university is a pillar for Mongolia's development, its pursuit of world-class standards is at risk if pre-publication quality control and external validation are not systemically reinforced. To secure its long-term vision, the university should leverage its clear strengths in research ethics to implement a rigorous internal audit focused on publication integrity and quality assurance.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.115, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.327. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management where the university moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. Although both the institution and the nation operate at a medium-risk level, the university's lower score indicates more effective control over affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's relative containment of this indicator suggests a more conservative and potentially more transparent approach to declaring institutional partnerships compared to the broader national context.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 2.155, the institution shows a significant risk level that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.826. This disparity indicates a critical accentuation of risk, where the university amplifies vulnerabilities present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm alerts to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, potentially due to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. This finding requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the university's reputation and ensure the reliability of its scientific contributions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.120, a moderate risk level that represents a notable deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.522. This divergence suggests the institution is more sensitive to risk factors than its national peers, pointing to internal dynamics that warrant review. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately higher rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.296, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.076. This indicates that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard, showing a stronger capacity to avoid problematic dissemination channels. While a sporadic presence in discontinued journals can occur, a consistently low score like this suggests effective due diligence in selecting publication venues. This proactive approach helps protect the institution from the reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing practices and ensures research resources are well-spent.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.103, the institution exhibits a low risk level, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.068. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks present in the country. A high rate of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university’s ability to maintain a low score in a higher-risk environment suggests it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, acting as a firewall against a broader national trend.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.780, while indicating a medium risk, reflects differentiated management as it is significantly lower than the national average of 3.020. This wide positive gap signals a dependency on external partners for impact, but the university's lower score shows it moderates this risk more effectively than its national peers. This suggests that while some of its scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, it has a stronger internal capacity for intellectual leadership than the country as a whole. This invites a strategic reflection on how to further build structural, internally-led research excellence to reduce reliance on collaborative impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is identical to the national average, reflecting a state of integrity synchrony. This perfect alignment with a very low-risk national environment signifies maximum scientific security in this area. It indicates a complete absence of signals related to extreme individual publication volumes that could challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This strong performance confirms that the university's culture does not foster imbalances between quantity and quality, and there are no signs of coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect alignment with the national average, demonstrating integrity synchrony in a very low-risk environment. This result indicates that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own journals, thus mitigating potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. By not relying on internal channels, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms its commitment to competitive validation rather than using 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.699 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.708, signifying integrity synchrony within a very low-risk context. This alignment shows a complete absence of signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The university's practices are consistent with the healthy national standard, indicating that its researchers are not artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume strengthens the scientific record and reflects a responsible use of the peer-review system.