| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.415 | 0.097 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.662 | 0.676 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.244 | 0.001 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.798 | 1.552 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.041 | -0.880 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.418 | -0.166 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.937 | 0.121 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.547 | 1.103 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.349 | 0.143 |
Universiti Teknologi MARA demonstrates a complex integrity profile, characterized by significant strengths in authorship practices and a commendable focus on building internal research capacity. With an overall score of 0.434, the institution shows exemplary control over hyperprolific authorship and maintains a prudent approach to collaboration, effectively insulating itself from certain national risk trends. These strengths are foundational to its academic excellence, reflected in its strong national rankings within the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in fields such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 2), Business, Management and Accounting (Top 5), and Dentistry (Top 5). However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by areas of concern, notably a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and elevated rates of institutional self-citation and redundant output. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the institutional mission "to enhance the knowledge and expertise... based on moral values and professional ethics." Pursuing excellence requires not only high-impact output but also unwavering adherence to ethical standards. To fully align its practices with its stated mission, the university is encouraged to leverage its robust governance in authorship to develop targeted strategies that enhance due diligence in publication selection and promote a culture of originality and external validation, thereby securing its long-term reputation and impact.
The institution's Z-score of -0.415 is notably lower than the national average of 0.097. This contrast suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's lower rate indicates a well-managed approach that discourages strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of 0.662, the institution's rate of retractions is nearly identical to the national average of 0.676. This alignment indicates that the university is operating within a systemic pattern, reflecting shared practices or challenges at a national level. Retractions are complex events, and this value does not necessarily signal a crisis. However, it does suggest that any potential weaknesses in pre-publication quality control mechanisms are not unique to the institution but are part of a broader dynamic, warranting a collaborative, system-wide approach to enhancing methodological rigor.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.244, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.001. This disparity points to a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to insular citation patterns than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks creating an endogamous impact that may be perceived as inflated by internal dynamics rather than recognized by the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 1.798 is elevated and surpasses the national average of 1.552, indicating a high exposure to this critical risk. This finding constitutes a significant alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication channels. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals suggests that research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice 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 venues.
With a Z-score of -1.041, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national standard (-0.880). This demonstrates that the university manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than its peers. The lower incidence of hyper-authorship suggests a culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby promoting greater individual accountability and transparency in research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.418 is considerably lower than the national average of -0.166, reflecting a prudent and sustainable profile. This indicates a healthier balance between the impact generated from all collaborations and the impact of research led directly by the institution. This strong performance suggests that the university's scientific prestige is built on a solid foundation of internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being overly dependent on external partners, signaling a robust and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -0.937 marks a stark contrast to the national average of 0.121, demonstrating a clear case of preventive isolation. The university does not replicate the risk dynamics related to extreme productivity observed in its environment. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors is a strong positive indicator, suggesting an institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over the sheer volume of publications, effectively preventing risks such as coercive or unmerited authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 0.547 is well below the national average of 1.103, indicating a differentiated and more effective management of this risk. By showing a more moderate reliance on its own journals, the university successfully mitigates the potential for academic endogamy and conflicts of interest that appear more common in the country. This approach, which favors external peer review, enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
With a Z-score of 0.349, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.143. This elevated rate of bibliographic overlap between publications serves as an alert for the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This tendency not only overburdens the peer-review system but also risks distorting the scientific evidence by prioritizing publication volume over the communication of significant, coherent new knowledge.
