Thammasat University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Thammasat University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.242 indicating a performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for hyperprolific authorship, publication in institutional journals, and redundant output, effectively avoiding common pitfalls in academic publishing. While most indicators reflect a low-risk or well-managed status, the moderate levels observed in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals represent the primary areas for strategic attention. These results are contextualized by the university's strong academic standing, as evidenced by its Top 10 national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings thematic areas such as Dentistry, Engineering, Business, Management and Accounting, and Social Sciences. This solid integrity foundation is crucial to fulfilling its mission to "develop practical research and explicit knowledge" and provide "high-level" services. However, the identified risks, particularly self-citation, could subtly undermine these goals by creating an impression of academic insularity, which contrasts with the mission's outward-facing commitment to society. By proactively addressing these moderate risks, the university can further solidify its reputation for excellence and ensure its research impact is both credible and globally recognized.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The university exhibits a prudent profile in managing multiple affiliations, with an institutional Z-score of -0.693, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.549. This suggests that the institution's policies or researcher practices are more conservative than the national average, effectively minimizing potential risks. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled, low-risk score indicates that the university is not exposed to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby ensuring that its collaborative output is transparent and accurately represented.

Rate of Retracted Output

With an institutional Z-score of -0.033, which is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.060, the university's rate of retractions falls within expected parameters for its context. This low-risk level suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning appropriately. Retractions can be complex events, and this score does not point to systemic failures or recurring malpractice. Instead, it reflects a standard operational environment where any necessary corrections to the scientific record are handled without indicating a broader vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of 0.633, reflects a systemic pattern that is consistent with the national average of 0.615. This alignment suggests that the institution's practices are influenced by shared dynamics or evaluation criteria within the country's research ecosystem. Although a certain level of self-citation is natural to show continuity in research, this medium-risk value serves as a warning against potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It is crucial to monitor this trend to ensure that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being disproportionately inflated by internal dynamics, which could create a perception of endogamous impact.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates differentiated management in its selection of publication venues, with a Z-score of 0.137, indicating a significantly lower risk than the national average of 0.511. This shows that the university is successfully moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. Nonetheless, the medium-risk classification warrants attention. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence, as it may expose the institution to reputational damage by associating its research with media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This score suggests a need for continued information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.909, the university maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship, demonstrating more rigorous control than the national standard of -0.625. This very low incidence indicates that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and questionable practices. The data suggests that the university's research culture promotes clear accountability and transparency in authorship, successfully mitigating the risks of author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authors, which can dilute individual responsibility.

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

The university shows a prudent and healthy profile in its collaborative impact, with a Z-score of -0.516, which is notably better than the national average of -0.335. This low-risk score indicates a strong balance between the impact generated from all collaborations and the impact of research where the institution holds a leadership role. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. The institution is not only a valuable collaborator but also a driver of high-impact research, mitigating the sustainability risk associated with exogenous prestige.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows low-profile consistency in this area, with a Z-score of -0.944 indicating a virtual absence of hyperprolific authors. This very low-risk signal aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.266) but demonstrates an even more conservative position. This finding suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, steering clear of extreme individual publication volumes that often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's environment does not appear to foster dynamics like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.595. This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment regarding in-house publications. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving genuine global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university maintains a state of low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -0.580, indicating an almost complete absence of redundant publications. This very low-risk signal is well below the already low national average of -0.027, highlighting the institution's robust adherence to publication ethics. The data confirms that the practice of fragmenting a single study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing,' is not a concern. This commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies reinforces the integrity of the scientific evidence produced and respects the academic review system.