| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.364 | 0.275 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.165 | -0.080 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.680 | 0.381 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.522 | 0.314 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.070 | -0.002 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.022 | 1.641 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.385 | -0.303 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.148 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.248 |
The National University, Philippines, presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.122. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices, particularly in areas where national trends show vulnerability, such as institutional self-citation and dependency on external leadership for impact. This solid foundation supports its notable academic achievements, with SCImago Institutions Rankings highlighting its leadership in Social Sciences (ranked 2nd in the Philippines), Engineering (8th), and Computer Science (11th). However, the analysis reveals specific areas of high exposure, namely in the rates of multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals, which are more pronounced than the national average. These vulnerabilities could potentially challenge the institution's mission to provide "relevant, innovative and... quality education," as they may signal practices that prioritize metric performance over substantive contribution. To fully align its operational conduct with its strategic vision, the University is encouraged to leverage its strong internal controls to develop targeted policies that address these specific risk factors, thereby reinforcing its commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility.
The institution's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: 1.364) indicates a high exposure to this risk, surpassing the national average (Z-score: 0.275). This suggests that the University is more prone than its national peers to practices that, while sometimes legitimate, can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” A disproportionately high rate in this area warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure that collaborations are driven by substantive research needs rather than metric optimization, thereby safeguarding the transparency of institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.165, the University demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.080). This low incidence suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are effective. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes reflecting honest corrections, but a consistently low rate like this one is a positive indicator of a healthy integrity culture and robust methodological supervision, minimizing the risk of systemic errors or malpractice.
The institution shows remarkable resilience against the risk of excessive self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.680, in contrast to the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.381). This indicates that the University's internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's low rate demonstrates a strong outward-looking research focus, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation and ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community.
The University's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: 0.522) reveals a high exposure to this risk, exceeding the national average (Z-score: 0.314). This pattern suggests the institution is more susceptible than its peers to channeling research into outlets that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. A high value in this indicator is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile in hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of -1.070, indicating significantly more rigorous control over authorship practices than the national standard (Z-score: -0.002). While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' an unusually low rate outside these fields is a positive sign. It suggests the University effectively discourages author list inflation and honorary authorship, promoting a culture where credit is assigned based on meaningful contribution and individual accountability is preserved.
The University demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from national trends regarding its impact autonomy, with a Z-score of -2.022, in stark contrast to the medium-risk dependency observed across the country (Z-score: 1.641). This exceptionally low gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally generated by research where its own members exercise intellectual leadership. This is a sign of high scientific maturity and sustainability, confirming that its recognized excellence results from genuine internal capacity.
With a Z-score of -0.385, the institution exhibits a prudent profile concerning hyperprolific authorship, managing this area with greater rigor than the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.303). This low incidence suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality. While high output can signify leadership, the absence of extreme publication volumes indicates that the University effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, fostering an environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued.
The University effectively isolates itself from the risks associated with publishing in its own journals, showing a Z-score of -0.268 while the national context presents a medium-risk dynamic (Z-score: 0.148). This demonstrates a clear commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and competes on the global stage rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks'.
The institution shows low-profile consistency in managing redundant output, with a Z-score of -1.186 that aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.248). The near-total absence of this signal is a strong indicator of good scientific practice. It suggests that researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete, significant work upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
