National Defence University of Malaysia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National Defence University of Malaysia (UPNM) presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.106 that indicates a solid foundation but also highlights specific areas for strategic improvement. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over intellectual leadership, evidenced by a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, and its successful avoidance of academic endogamy by minimizing output in institutional journals. Furthermore, UPNM demonstrates commendable resilience, effectively filtering national risk trends related to multiple affiliations and retracted publications. However, areas of concern emerge in practices related to publication strategy, specifically a higher-than-average national tendency towards institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant output (salami slicing). These vulnerabilities, while moderate, require attention as they could subtly undermine the institution's mission to achieve "scholarly excellence" and "quality publications." The university's strong positioning in key thematic areas, as shown by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Medicine, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Earth and Planetary Sciences, provides a powerful platform for growth. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, UPNM is encouraged to review and reinforce its authorship and publication guidelines, ensuring that its pursuit of excellence is built on a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity and genuine global contribution.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.668 contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.097. This indicates that the university demonstrates notable institutional resilience, effectively mitigating systemic risks related to affiliation practices that are more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. UPNM’s low score suggests that its governance and affiliation policies are well-controlled, ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately and transparently, thereby reinforcing its academic credibility within a more complex national environment.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.202, the institution shows a significantly lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.676. This differential suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed across the country. A high rate of retractions can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. UPNM’s performance in this area points to a robust system of quality control and responsible supervision prior to publication, safeguarding its reputation and aligning with its commitment to scholarly excellence.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.394, which, while within the medium risk band, is notably higher than the national average of 0.001. This suggests the university has a higher exposure to practices that could be interpreted as scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can signal 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than broad recognition from the global scientific community, a point for strategic review.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.777 is considerably lower than the national average of 1.552, both of which fall into the medium risk category. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common at the national level. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. UPNM’s relative control in this area indicates a more discerning approach to publication, which helps protect it from the severe reputational risks associated with channeling research through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.882 is almost identical to the national average of -0.880, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is as expected for its context and does not deviate from the national pattern. In certain 'Big Science' fields, extensive author lists are legitimate. However, outside these contexts, high rates can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. UPNM's alignment with the national norm suggests its collaborative practices are standard for its research ecosystem and do not currently signal widespread issues with 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution exhibits an exceptionally strong Z-score of -1.006, far below the national average of -0.166. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. A wide positive gap in this indicator can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. UPNM's very low score is a powerful indicator of scientific sustainability and intellectual leadership, confirming that its measured impact is overwhelmingly generated by research where its own scholars are at the helm, a testament to its internal capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 0.699, the institution shows a higher incidence of hyperprolific authors compared to the national average of 0.121. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk factor, suggesting the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of authorship policies.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low risk category, marking a significant and positive divergence from the national average of 1.103, which is in the medium risk band. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy, bypassing independent peer review. UPNM’s extremely low reliance on such channels demonstrates a strong commitment to global standards, ensuring its scientific production is validated through competitive, external scrutiny and maximizing its international visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 2.199, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.143. This reveals a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the center is more prone to this practice than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a study is divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value serves as an alert that this practice, which can distort scientific evidence and overburden the review system, may be occurring at a rate that requires internal review to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.