| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.321 | -0.549 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.324 | -0.060 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.141 | 0.615 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.026 | 0.511 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.116 | -0.625 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.033 | -0.335 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.131 | -0.266 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.595 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.133 | -0.027 |
King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.014 reflecting a solid foundation but also highlighting specific areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk practices related to authorship and collaboration, including very low rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its led research. Furthermore, its prudent use of institutional journals sets a standard of preventive isolation from national trends. These strengths are complemented by high national rankings in key thematic areas such as Energy, Computer Science, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, medium-risk signals in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Redundant Output pose a direct challenge to its mission of achieving "international excellence" and upholding the "highest quality" standards. These vulnerabilities could undermine the institution's reputation and its commitment to "good morality" in research. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the institution is encouraged to leverage its robust governance in authorship to develop enhanced quality control mechanisms and researcher training programs focused on publication ethics and channel selection.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is -1.321, indicating a very low rate that is consistent with the low-risk national standard observed in Thailand (Z-score: -0.549). This absence of risk signals suggests that affiliations are managed with a high degree of transparency and integrity. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's low rate confirms it is effectively avoiding strategic practices like "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, thereby ensuring that its collaborative footprint is both genuine and clear.
With a Z-score of 0.324, the institution's rate of retracted output shows a moderate deviation from the national average (Z-score: -0.060), suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This may indicate that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are facing systemic challenges, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard scientific quality.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.141 for institutional self-citation, a rate that indicates higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.615. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: 1.026) is notably higher than the national benchmark (Z-score: 0.511), indicating a high exposure to this risk. This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. A high Z-score suggests that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
The institution demonstrates a very low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.116), a profile that aligns with and even improves upon the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.625). This absence of risk signals indicates that authorship practices are transparent and accountable. It suggests that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary, large-scale collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving the principle of individual accountability in its research publications.
With a Z-score of -1.033, the institution shows a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role, a profile consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.335). This strong performance suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and self-sustaining, not dependent on external partners. It reflects a healthy research ecosystem where excellence metrics are the direct result of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring long-term scientific sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -1.131 for hyperprolific authors is very low, reinforcing the low-risk environment seen at the national level (Z-score: -0.266). This indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality within its research community. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that authorship is generally assigned based on meaningful intellectual contribution, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268), a practice that isolates it from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.595). This preventive stance is a sign of strong governance, as it avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy where the institution would act as both judge and party. By favoring external channels, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, which enhances its global visibility and reinforces the credibility of its research through standard competitive validation.
The institution's rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of 0.133, presents a moderate deviation from the national benchmark, which is in the low-risk range (Z-score: -0.027). This indicates a greater sensitivity to the practice of 'salami slicing' compared to its national peers. This value serves as an alert to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such a practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
