Suranaree University of Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Suranaree University of Technology demonstrates a robust and generally positive scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.048. The institution exhibits significant strengths in critical areas of research governance, including an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, a strong capacity for generating impact through its own intellectual leadership, and a commendable avoidance of academic endogamy by not over-relying on institutional journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its mission to create and enhance knowledge. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly notable in thematic areas such as Arts and Humanities (ranked 6th in Thailand), Computer Science (8th), Earth and Planetary Sciences (8th), and Social Sciences (9th). However, this strong performance is contrasted by concentrated risks related to authorship and citation practices, specifically in hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and institutional self-citation. These vulnerabilities, if left unaddressed, could undermine the university's commitment to training high-level personnel and advancing technology with integrity, as they prioritize metric volume over the genuine creation of knowledge. A proactive strategy to review and reinforce authorship guidelines is therefore recommended to ensure that its operational practices fully align with its mission of national development and technological self-reliance.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.532 is statistically indistinguishable from the national average of -0.549, indicating that its level of multiple affiliations is entirely normal for its context. This alignment suggests that the university's collaborative patterns and researcher mobility are in line with national standards. While disproportionately high rates can sometimes signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, the data here shows no such risk signals, reflecting a standard and appropriate engagement in legitimate partnerships and dual appointments.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.550, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.060. This result points to a consistent and effective system of quality control. The absence of risk signals, even when compared to a country baseline that is already low, suggests that the university's pre-publication review mechanisms and integrity culture are robust. This is a significant strength, indicating that research is conducted with high methodological rigor, minimizing the likelihood of systemic errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 1.388 is notably higher than the national average of 0.615, indicating a greater exposure to the risks associated with this practice. This suggests that the institution is more prone than its national peers to forming '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 potential endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community, warranting a review of citation patterns.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.107, which, while indicating a medium risk level, is significantly lower than the national average of 0.511. This demonstrates a differentiated and more effective management of publication channels compared to the national trend. Although the risk of publishing in low-quality or predatory journals is a common challenge in the country, the university appears to moderate this risk successfully. This suggests that its researchers exercise greater due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, thereby protecting the institution's reputation and research investment from being wasted on outlets that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

A Z-score of 2.443 marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.625, highlighting a significant and atypical risk activity that requires immediate attention. This value indicates a rate of hyper-authorship that is an absolute outlier within the national scientific landscape. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are standard, such a high score strongly suggests a systemic issue with author list inflation. This practice dilutes individual accountability and transparency, raising urgent questions about the potential prevalence of 'honorary' or political authorships. A deep integrity assessment is required to distinguish legitimate large-scale collaboration from practices that compromise research ethics.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.906 is very low and well below the national average of -0.335, signaling a key strategic strength. This result indicates that the university's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural capacity. The minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership demonstrates a high degree of scientific self-reliance. This confirms that its excellence metrics are a direct result of genuine internal capabilities, a crucial asset for sustainable and independent research development.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 1.193, the institution shows a greater sensitivity to the risks of hyperprolific authorship compared to the national average of -0.266. This moderate deviation from the national norm suggests that a subset of authors may be producing publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a warning of potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It warrants a review to ensure that institutional incentives prioritize the integrity of the scientific record over sheer productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.595, which falls in the medium-risk category. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed elsewhere in the country. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the institution actively avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, showing that its scientific production competes successfully on the international stage rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.116 indicates a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.027, suggesting a greater tendency toward redundant publication practices. This value serves as an alert for 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study might be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence available to the community. The university should review its research evaluation criteria to ensure they incentivize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.