Assumption University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Assumption University demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, reflected in its low global risk score of 0.233. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels across a majority of indicators, including Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, signaling a culture of external validation and responsible authorship. These strengths are complemented by its notable academic positioning within Thailand, particularly in Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 11th nationally) and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 11th nationally), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While a specific mission statement was not provided for this analysis, this strong integrity foundation aligns with the universal academic values of excellence and ethical research. However, this positive outlook is challenged by significant risks in publication practices, specifically a high Rate of Redundant Output and a medium-risk exposure to Discontinued Journals and Retracted Output. These vulnerabilities could undermine the institution's reputation for quality and contradict the pursuit of genuine scientific advancement. The university has a robust foundation to build upon; the primary recommendation is to implement targeted strategies to address these specific publication-related risks, thereby solidifying its commitment to both academic excellence and scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is -0.719, slightly below the national average of -0.549. This comparison suggests a prudent profile, where the university manages its affiliation processes with slightly more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to collaboration, effectively avoiding signals that could be misinterpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.258, the institution shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of -0.060. This moderate deviation indicates that the university is more sensitive to risk factors in this area than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate notably above the national baseline suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges. This serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that a review of methodological rigor and pre-publication supervision may be necessary to prevent recurring issues.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

For the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, the institution shows an exemplary Z-score of -1.455, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.615, which falls into a medium-risk category. This result demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics related to self-citation that are more prevalent at the national level. The institution's very low score indicates robust external validation and a healthy integration into the global scientific conversation, steering clear of 'echo chambers' or the risk of endogamous impact inflation. This suggests the institution's academic influence is genuinely driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for output in discontinued journals is 2.077, while the national average is 0.511. Both the institution and the country show a medium level of risk, but the university's higher score indicates it is more prone to this vulnerability than its environment average. This high exposure constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university presents a Z-score of -1.307 for hyper-authored output, a figure significantly lower than the national average of -0.625. This demonstrates a prudent profile, as the institution manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. This very low score indicates that the university's collaborative patterns are well-aligned with disciplinary norms, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices that could suggest author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability.

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

The institution records a Z-score of -1.329 in this indicator, which is substantially lower than the national average of -0.335. This prudent profile suggests the institution manages its research leadership with more rigor than the national standard. A low gap indicates that the scientific prestige of the university is structural and results from real internal capacity, rather than being dependent on external partners. This demonstrates that the institution exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring its impact metrics are a true reflection of its own research capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a much lower rate of hyperprolific authors than the national average of -0.266. This reflects a prudent profile, indicating that the university's research environment fosters a healthier balance between productivity and quality than the national standard. The very low score suggests an absence of extreme individual publication volumes that often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score for output in its own journals is -0.268, while the national average stands at 0.595, a medium-risk value. This contrast signifies a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By maintaining a very low dependence on its in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and reinforcing its commitment to standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution presents a Z-score of 3.694 for the Rate of Redundant Output, while the national average is -0.027. This reveals a severe discrepancy, indicating that the institution's activity in this area is highly atypical compared to the national standard and requires a deep integrity assessment. A high value in this indicator, often known as 'salami slicing,' is a critical alert for the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.