Maejo University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Maejo University presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall score of -0.132, which indicates a solid foundation with specific areas of excellence and opportunities for targeted improvement. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in managing authorship practices, with very low risk signals for Hyper-Authored Output and Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), showcasing a culture that prioritizes accountability and substantive contributions. Conversely, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate rate of Retracted Output and a higher-than-average reliance on institutional journals, which warrant a review of pre-publication quality controls and dissemination policies. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong academic standing, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it among the top 10 institutions in Thailand for Veterinary (6th), Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (7th), Mathematics (7th), and Environmental Science (9th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these risk indicators directly impact universal academic values of excellence, rigor, and social responsibility. The identified vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could undermine the credibility of its recognized thematic strengths. By leveraging its clear operational strengths to mitigate its few areas of risk, Maejo University is well-positioned to enhance its reputation for high-quality, ethically sound research and reinforce its leadership in key scientific domains.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The university's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.428), while low, is slightly higher than the national baseline (Z-score: -0.549), suggesting an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation compared to the national context could signal the early stages of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. A proactive review of affiliation patterns is recommended to ensure they reflect genuine scientific collaboration and do not evolve into a risk of "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

A moderate deviation from the national standard is observed in the rate of retracted output, with the university showing a Z-score of 0.051 compared to the country's average of -0.060. This indicates a greater institutional sensitivity to factors that lead to retractions than its peers. A rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more systemically, indicating a need for immediate qualitative verification by management to distinguish between responsible error correction and possible recurring malpractice.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with its low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.600) serving as a clear counterpoint to the moderate risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.615). This suggests that effective internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the country's systemic risks. By maintaining a low level of self-citation, the institution avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation, ensuring its research is subject to sufficient external scrutiny and that its academic influence is validated by the global community, not just internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of -0.026, the university effectively filters the national tendency towards publishing in discontinued journals, which stands at a moderate-risk Z-score of 0.511. This performance highlights a strong institutional capacity for due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This resilience is critical, as a high proportion of output in such journals constitutes an alert regarding reputational risk. The university's approach protects its resources and prestige by avoiding 'predatory' or low-quality practices that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution shows an exceptionally low rate of hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -1.137), performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.625). This near-total absence of risk signals reflects a culture of responsible authorship that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the national standard. This indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in its research.

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

The university's profile regarding its impact dependency is one of statistical normality, with its Z-score of -0.332 being almost identical to the national average of -0.335. This indicates that the risk level is as expected for its context and size. A very wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent and exogenous. However, the university's balanced score suggests that its scientific prestige is built on a solid foundation of real internal capacity, mitigating the risk of a reputation that is overly reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's rate of hyperprolific authors presents an incipient vulnerability, with a Z-score of -0.073 that, while in the low-risk range, is higher than the national benchmark of -0.266. This signal warrants review before it escalates. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight elevation points to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality, alerting to possible risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 0.704, the university demonstrates high exposure to risks associated with publishing in its own journals, a rate that is more pronounced than the national average of 0.595. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to potential conflicts of interest, where it acts as both judge and party. This pattern warns of the risk of academic endogamy, where scientific production might bypass independent external peer review. Such a practice limits global visibility and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university maintains an exemplary profile in avoiding redundant publications, with a Z-score of -1.186 that signifies a near-total operational silence for this risk, far surpassing the low-risk national average of -0.027. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a strong institutional focus on substantive research. The data strongly suggests that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence and prioritizing significant new knowledge over volume.