Khon Kaen University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

With an overall integrity score of 0.093, Khon Kaen University (KKU) demonstrates a generally robust research profile, characterized by significant strengths in operational integrity and endogenous impact generation. The institution excels in maintaining a very low-risk profile for the sustainability of its scientific impact (Gap between total and leadership impact) and shows prudent management in areas like Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, and Redundant Output, often performing better than the national average. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation in the Rate of Retracted Output and high exposure to Institutional Self-Citation and publication in Discontinued Journals. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, warrant proactive management to safeguard the university's reputation. These findings are contextualized by KKU's outstanding performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it ranks among the top national institutions in key areas such as Mathematics (1st), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (2nd), Engineering (3rd), and Arts and Humanities (3rd). To fully align with its mission to be "recognized both internationally and regionally as a leading university in research," it is crucial to address the identified integrity risks. Practices that could be perceived as endogamous or lacking in quality control directly challenge the principles of global excellence and leadership. By reinforcing its quality assurance mechanisms and promoting a culture of external validation, KKU can leverage its clear thematic strengths to solidify its status as a benchmark institution, ensuring its research leadership is built upon an unshakeable foundation of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.814, which is lower than the national average of -0.549. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the controlled rate at Khon Kaen University indicates that these are likely driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, reflecting a healthy and transparent approach to academic partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.267, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.060. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. Retractions can be complex events, and while some may signify responsible supervision in correcting errors, a rate significantly higher than the national average suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture alerts to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent reputational damage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 1.104 reveals a high exposure to this risk, exceeding the national average of 0.615. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community, a factor to consider for a university with international leadership ambitions.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.584 is slightly above the national trend of 0.511, indicating a higher exposure to this risk factor. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.857, which is well below the national average of -0.625, the institution demonstrates a prudent and well-managed profile in this area. This suggests that its processes for assigning authorship are more rigorous than the national standard. The low rate indicates that extensive author lists are likely confined to legitimate "Big Science" contexts where they are structurally necessary, effectively mitigating the risks of author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.045, a very low-risk signal that is significantly stronger than the national average of -0.335. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals and highlights a key institutional strength. A very low gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and self-sustained, not dependent on external partners for impact. This indicates that its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity where the institution exercises intellectual leadership, ensuring a sustainable and robust research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.117, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.266, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the issue is not widespread, the university shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between publication quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation. Monitoring this trend is crucial to ensure that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 0.419, the university demonstrates differentiated management by maintaining a rate below the national average of 0.595. This indicates that the institution effectively moderates a risk that is more common in the country. By limiting its dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that a larger share of its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and reinforces the credibility of its research through standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.264 is notably lower than the national average of -0.027, reflecting a prudent profile in this area. This suggests that the university's publication practices are managed with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of massive and recurring bibliographic overlap indicates a healthy focus on producing significant new knowledge rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment strengthens the integrity of the scientific evidence produced by the institution.