Naresuan University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Naresuan University presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.111 that indicates strong alignment with international best practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and redundant publications, areas where it outperforms national averages. These results reflect a solid foundation of responsible research conduct. However, to fully realize its mission of achieving "research excellence," strategic attention is required for three medium-risk indicators: the rate of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, suggest that the university's pursuit of excellence could be undermined by potential gaps in quality control and an over-reliance on external collaborations for impact. The university's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly its Top 10 national rankings in Dentistry and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, provides a solid platform from which to address these challenges. By focusing on strengthening internal quality assurance and fostering intellectual leadership, Naresuan University can ensure its operational practices are in complete harmony with its ambitious strategic vision.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.466 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.549, though both fall within a low-risk range. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick compared to the national baseline could be an early signal of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Proactive review is recommended to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive contributions, thereby preventing this trend from escalating.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.061, the institution exhibits a medium-level risk for retracted publications, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (-0.060). This suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to factors that lead to retractions. A rate significantly higher than the country average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This finding indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than at peer institutions, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its research excellence.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.458, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.615. This indicates that the university's internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of academic endogamy prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, but by maintaining a low rate, the institution effectively avoids signals of concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated by the broader scientific community rather than through internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.478 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.511, placing both at a medium-risk level. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, where the risk level reflects shared practices or a common lack of information at a national level. This indicator constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it suggests a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and highlights an urgent, system-wide need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.886, the institution exhibits a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (-0.625). This low-risk score indicates commendable management of authorship practices. By maintaining a rate below the national average, the institution effectively avoids signals of author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. This practice reinforces a culture where authorship is earned through significant contribution, distinguishing its output from potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of 2.159 represents a medium-level risk and a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average (-0.335). This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that while the university's global research impact is high, the impact generated from work where it holds intellectual leadership is comparatively low. This high value suggests its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a critical reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows low-profile consistency with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413, far below the already low national average of -0.266. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard and demonstrates an exemplary balance between productivity and quality. The data strongly suggests the institution is not prone to dynamics such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation driven by a few individuals. This reinforces the integrity of its scientific record by ensuring that publication volume does not compromise meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates preventive isolation with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk dynamic observed nationally (0.595). This suggests a successful and deliberate strategy to mitigate the risks of academic endogamy. By not depending on its own journals, the institution ensures its scientific production consistently faces independent external peer review, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest. This practice enhances global visibility and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs, reinforcing a commitment to standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a very low-risk Z-score of -1.022, the institution's performance shows low-profile consistency, surpassing the low-risk national benchmark (-0.027). This near-total absence of risk signals indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. By effectively preventing the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units, or 'salami slicing,' the university upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.