Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity, contrasted by a critical vulnerability that requires immediate attention. With an overall risk score of 2.424, the institution demonstrates exemplary performance in multiple key areas, including a very low dependence on external leadership for impact, minimal hyper-prolific authorship, and a commendable commitment to external peer review over institutional journals. These positive indicators reflect a solid foundation of responsible research conduct. The university's academic strengths are evident in its national standing within the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in fields such as Veterinary (ranked 7th in Thailand) and Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 10th). However, this strong performance is severely undermined by an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals. This practice directly conflicts with the institutional mission to produce "niche guru knowledge" and be "admired appreciated by the entire world," as it channels valuable research into outlets that lack credibility and global recognition. To safeguard its reputation and fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the university must urgently address its publication selection protocols while continuing to build upon its many areas of integrity excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.525 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.549. This demonstrates a commendable level of clarity and consistency in how institutional affiliations are declared. The absence of risk signals in this area, which surpasses the already low-risk national standard, suggests that the university's research community operates with high transparency. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit; the university's current profile effectively avoids any such ambiguity, reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.184, the university shows a prudent profile, managing its processes with slightly more rigor than the national standard (Z-score of -0.060). Both scores are in a low-risk range, but the institution's value indicates a marginally lower incidence of retracted publications. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate suggests that the quality control and supervision mechanisms in place prior to publication are functioning effectively, preventing systemic failures and contributing to a culture of scientific integrity.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 0.767 indicates a medium risk level, showing a higher exposure to this indicator than the national average of 0.615. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to developing 'echo chambers' where its work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global scientific community. This pattern warrants a review to ensure a healthy balance between building on internal research lines and engaging with the broader academic world.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a critical alert with a Z-score of 14.318, a value that dramatically amplifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.511). This severe discrepancy indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. Such a high proportion constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices. This finding suggests an urgent and systemic need to implement information literacy and quality assurance policies for publication selection.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.116 is well below the national average of -0.625, reflecting a very low-risk profile. This strong performance indicates that authorship practices at the university are well-aligned with international norms, avoiding the risk of author list inflation. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can dilute individual accountability. The university's data, however, points to a culture of transparency and meaningful contribution in its collaborative research, which reinforces the integrity of its academic record.

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

With a Z-score of -1.487, far below the national average of -0.335, the university demonstrates exceptional performance in this area. This very low score signifies that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from strong internal capacity rather than being dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This result is a powerful indicator of the university's ability to generate high-impact research independently, reflecting a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -0.963 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.266, indicating a very low-risk environment. This result suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research output. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal risks such as coercive authorship or a prioritization of metrics over scientific integrity. The institution's low score in this area is a positive sign of a research culture that values substantive contributions over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a clear strength with a Z-score of -0.268, positioning it in the very low-risk category and demonstrating a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.595). While the country shows a medium-level tendency towards academic endogamy, the university actively avoids this risk by favoring external, independent peer review. This practice limits potential conflicts of interest, enhances the global visibility of its research, and confirms that its output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than potentially fast-tracked internal ones.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.349, indicating more rigorous management of this risk compared to the national standard (Z-score of -0.027). This lower score suggests that the institution's researchers are less prone to engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete and significant work strengthens the scientific record and reflects a focus on generating new knowledge over maximizing publication counts.