Rangsit University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Rangsit University presents a robust integrity profile, reflected in its overall score of 0.237, characterized by significant strengths in governance and author-level conduct, alongside specific, addressable vulnerabilities in its publication strategy. The institution demonstrates exemplary control over practices such as the use of institutional journals, hyperprolific authorship, and multiple affiliations, indicating a solid foundation of internal policy. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research strengths are particularly notable in fields such as Environmental Science (ranked 8th in Thailand), Dentistry (9th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (11th). However, the medium-risk signals in retracted output, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals present a direct challenge to its mission of maintaining "high standards of quality." These risks suggest that while individual conduct is well-regulated, systemic support for quality assurance in publication and dissemination requires reinforcement. By leveraging its foundational strengths, the university has a clear opportunity to develop targeted training and review mechanisms that will align its publication practices with its commendable institutional mission and research excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -1.280, significantly below the national average of -0.549, the institution demonstrates an exemplary and transparent approach to academic collaboration. This result indicates that the university's affiliations are managed with exceptional clarity, showing no signs of the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping” that can be flagged by this indicator. The institution's performance in this area is a clear signal of robust governance, reflecting a commitment to legitimate partnerships that is even more rigorous than the already low-risk national standard.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.652 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.060, suggesting a greater sensitivity to the factors leading to retractions compared to its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national baseline serves as an alert. This value suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. Beyond isolated incidents, this indicator points to a potential vulnerability in the institutional integrity culture, indicating a need for management to conduct a qualitative verification of its research supervision and methodological rigor to prevent recurring malpractice.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 1.145 is notably higher than the national average of 0.615, indicating a high exposure to this risk factor. While both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context, the university is significantly more prone to this behavior. This disproportionately high rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a heightened risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 1.466, the institution shows a high exposure to publishing in problematic venues, a rate substantially above the national average of 0.511. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The high score indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution exhibits a prudent profile in managing authorship, with a Z-score of -0.859 that is more conservative than the national standard of -0.625. This result indicates that the university manages its collaborative processes with greater rigor than its national peers. The data suggests a healthy distinction between necessary, large-scale collaboration and the risk of author list inflation. By maintaining this low-risk profile, the institution effectively safeguards individual accountability and transparency in its research attributions, avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.377 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.335, indicating a normal and expected risk level for its context. This alignment demonstrates a healthy balance between the impact generated through external collaborations and that from research led internally. The score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead structural and sustainable. This reflects a solid internal capacity for producing impactful research, positioning the university as a genuine contributor in its collaborative networks rather than a passive partner.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.183, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.266. This result reflects a well-balanced academic environment where the focus is on quality over sheer volume. The data confirms that the university is not exposed to the risks often associated with extreme productivity, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk prevalent in its national context, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a country where the average is 0.595 (medium risk). This outstanding result shows that the university does not replicate the national tendency to rely on in-house publications. By avoiding this practice, the institution successfully sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its scientific output, setting a high standard for integrity.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.508 represents a moderate deviation from the national context, which has a low-risk score of -0.027. This indicates that the university is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that lead to redundant publications. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.