Chiang Mai University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Chiang Mai University demonstrates a robust and generally positive scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.152 indicating a low level of systemic vulnerability. The institution's primary strengths lie in its effective avoidance of predatory publishing channels and its minimal rate of redundant publications, showcasing strong due diligence and a commitment to impactful research. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high exposure to academic endogamy, evidenced by elevated rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, alongside a moderate deviation in the prevalence of hyperprolific authors. These specific risks, if unaddressed, could challenge the University's mission to uphold "academic excellence with high moral and ethical standards." The institution's outstanding leadership, reflected in its top national rankings in critical fields such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, provides a solid foundation of excellence. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the University is encouraged to reinforce mechanisms for external validation and review, ensuring its celebrated impact is unequivocally recognized by the global scientific community and continues to drive the sustainable development of the region.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.481, slightly above the national average of -0.549. This score reflects an incipient vulnerability. While the overall rate remains low, this slight divergence from the national baseline suggests that the University shows early signals of risk activity that are not as prevalent elsewhere in the country. It is important to monitor this trend, as disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” even though multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility and collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution's performance is in close alignment with the national average of -0.060. This indicates a state of statistical normality, where the level of risk associated with retracted publications is as expected for its context and size. This alignment suggests that the University's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning at a standard comparable to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and this low, stable rate signifies that the institution is managing the balance between correcting unintentional errors and preventing systemic failures effectively.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 1.062 is notably higher than the national average of 0.615, indicating high exposure to this risk factor. This suggests the University is more prone to developing concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' than its national counterparts. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by sufficient external scrutiny from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.014, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.511. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the University’s control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While a sporadic presence in such journals can occur, this very low score indicates that the institution exercises strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice protects the University from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing and shows an effective defense against practices that are more common at the national level.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.634 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.625, signifying statistical normality. This alignment suggests that the University's authorship patterns are consistent with national practices and are appropriate for its research context. The low score indicates that, in general, author lists are not being inflated. This serves as a positive signal that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and potentially problematic "honorary" or political authorship practices, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency.

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

With a Z-score of -0.518, the institution shows a more favorable profile than the national average of -0.335. This reflects a prudent approach, suggesting the University manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard to ensure it retains intellectual leadership. A very wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. This institution's negative score is a strong indicator of structural and sustainable scientific prestige, demonstrating that its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.477 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.266. This difference indicates that the University shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator serves as an alert 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.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution has a Z-score of 2.158, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.595. This signals a high exposure to the risks associated with academic endogamy. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, this pronounced dependence raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. The high score warns that a substantial portion of scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review, which could limit global visibility and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of -0.818, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of redundant output, well below the already low national average of -0.027. This finding points to low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is in perfect alignment with, and even exceeds, the national standard. This score indicates a strong institutional culture that discourages the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. It reflects a commitment to producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, thereby strengthening the integrity of the scientific evidence it generates.