Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy demonstrates an outstanding profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.434 that places it in a position of exceptional strength. The institution's primary assets are its robust defense against practices that inflate productivity metrics at the expense of quality, evidenced by its "very low" risk levels in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. The only area requiring attention is a "medium" risk level in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, though the institution manages this far more effectively than the national average. This commitment to research integrity directly underpins the school's academic excellence, as reflected in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it consistently places in the top 5 within Singapore across key areas such as Social Sciences, Economics, and Business. This strong ethical foundation is perfectly aligned with its mission to be a "leading global public policy school" and to "improve standards of governance." A culture of integrity is not merely complementary but essential to developing credible thought leadership and transforming lives sustainably. The institution is therefore advised to continue leveraging its high standards as a strategic differentiator while conducting a review of its affiliation practices to ensure they consistently enhance its global leadership position.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.042, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.724. Although both the school and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the institution demonstrates a differentiated and more controlled management of this practice. This suggests that while operating in an environment where multiple affiliations are common, the school has mechanisms in place that moderate the associated risks more effectively than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The school's ability to keep this rate well below the national trend indicates a prudent approach that helps safeguard its academic reputation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution's rate of retracted output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.240, though both remain at a low-risk level. This minor difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors, a rate that edges above the national baseline, however slightly, could indicate a potential weakness in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. To maintain its strong integrity profile, the institution should ensure its review processes are sufficiently robust to prevent systemic errors and uphold its commitment to methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.637, which is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.654. This demonstrates a state of statistical normality, where the risk level is low and exactly as expected for its context. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. The school's score confirms that its practices are well within this healthy range, showing no signs of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This alignment indicates that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader scientific community, not just by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.242, which represents a slight divergence from the country's very low-risk profile (-0.465). This indicates the presence of minor risk signals within the school that are largely absent at the national level. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals may be due to a lack of information, but even a low rate constitutes a signal regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure that scientific production is consistently channeled through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thereby avoiding any potential reputational risk.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.942, the institution exhibits a prudent profile that is significantly more rigorous than the national standard (-0.295), even though both are in the low-risk category. This demonstrates that the school manages its authorship practices with greater control than its peers. In many fields, extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. The institution's exceptionally low score in this area is a strong positive signal, suggesting a culture that values transparency and meaningful contributions over the inclusion of 'honorary' authors, thereby setting a higher standard for research integrity.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.737 is statistically normal and fully aligned with the national average of -0.777. Both scores are in the low-risk category, indicating a healthy and sustainable impact model. A wide positive gap in this indicator can signal that an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The school's low and nationally-aligned score demonstrates that its global impact is well-supported by research where it exercises direct leadership, confirming that its reputation for excellence is built on strong internal capacity.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, placing it in the very low-risk category and demonstrating a remarkable preventive isolation from the national trend, where the risk is medium (Z-score of 1.248). This stark contrast highlights the school's success in fostering a research culture that does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the integrity of the scientific record by prioritizing metrics over substance. The complete absence of this signal at the institution indicates a robust governance framework that effectively prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution, setting a clear standard against practices that could devalue authorship.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a state of total operational silence in this area, performing even better than the country's very low-risk average (-0.205). This exemplary result signals a firm commitment to external validation and global visibility. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, potentially bypassing independent peer review. The institution's near-zero activity in this indicator confirms that its scientific production is consistently subjected to the scrutiny of the international academic community, reinforcing the credibility and reach of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signifies a very low-risk profile, showcasing a stronger performance than the already low-risk national standard (-0.398). This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than in its environment, points to a deeply embedded culture of research integrity. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' artificially inflates productivity by fragmenting studies into minimal units. The institution's excellent score indicates a clear focus on producing coherent, significant knowledge, thereby strengthening the scientific record rather than merely increasing publication volume.