Mahasarakham University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Mahasarakham University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.127, indicating a solid foundation with specific, manageable areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in fostering intellectual autonomy and ensuring its research is validated by the global community, as evidenced by its very low risk in the 'Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership' and 'Rate of Output in Institutional Journals'. However, this positive outlook is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities in 'Rate of Institutional Self-Citation' and medium-risk signals in 'Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals' and 'Rate of Redundant Output'. These challenges require attention as they could undermine the university's mission to create "innovations from research works of high quality." According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strong national standing in key areas such as Mathematics (ranked 2nd), Psychology (11th), Veterinary (11th), and Business, Management and Accounting (12th) provides a platform of excellence. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university is encouraged to leverage this report to address the identified risks, thereby reinforcing its commitment to producing new knowledge with unimpeachable integrity and securing its role as a leader in Thai higher education.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.799 is lower than the national average of -0.549, demonstrating a prudent and well-managed approach to collaborative affiliations. This controlled rate suggests that the university's partnerships are transparent and not leveraged to artificially inflate institutional credit. The data indicates a rigorous process for declaring affiliations, reflecting a culture of accountability that aligns with national standards while showing even greater diligence than its peers.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.230, which is below the national average of -0.060, the institution exhibits a more rigorous profile than its national counterparts regarding publication retractions. This prudent performance suggests that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms and supervisory processes are effective. The low rate indicates a strong integrity culture where potential errors are identified and corrected internally, reinforcing the reliability and trustworthiness of its scientific output.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 3.920 is in the significant risk category, markedly amplifying the vulnerability present in the national system, which has a medium-risk average of 0.615. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning degree of scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber.' This practice creates a substantial risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by broader recognition from the global scientific community, a trend that requires immediate strategic review.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.344 indicates a higher exposure to publishing in questionable venues compared to the national average of 0.511. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals suggests that a significant amount of research is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution displays a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.077, well below the national average of -0.625. This indicates a conservative and rigorous approach to authorship attribution. The data suggests that the university effectively manages the distinction between necessary, large-scale collaboration and practices like honorary authorship. This reinforces a culture of individual accountability and transparency, where author lists are more likely to reflect genuine intellectual contributions.

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

With an exceptionally low Z-score of -2.051 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.335, the institution demonstrates a consistent and exemplary profile of scientific autonomy. The absence of risk signals in this area, even surpassing the national standard, is a powerful indicator of internal strength. It shows that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is structurally driven by research where its own faculty exercise intellectual leadership, reflecting a sustainable and robust capacity for generating high-impact work.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.853 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.266, indicating a prudent management of author productivity that surpasses the national standard. This suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the quality of scientific contributions over sheer volume. The low incidence of hyperprolific authors indicates that the university effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, a stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.595. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed elsewhere in the country. By not over-relying on its own journals, the institution effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external validation ensures its research undergoes independent peer review, which is crucial for enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of 1.591, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.027, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This value alerts to the potential practice of fragmenting coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This pattern of 'salami slicing' can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system, suggesting a need to review institutional incentives to ensure they reward significant new knowledge over publication volume.