| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.287 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.470 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.712 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.864 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.857 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.887 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.413 | 0.313 |
Can Tho University presents a profile of moderate overall risk (Z-score: 0.244) characterized by a duality of exceptional strengths and specific, concentrated vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates outstanding performance in areas of fundamental scientific integrity, such as maintaining a very low rate of retracted output and redundant publications, suggesting robust internal quality controls. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high rate of institutional self-citation, a significant reliance on publications in discontinued journals, and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly prominent in Dentistry, Veterinary, Arts and Humanities, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, where it ranks among the top institutions in Viet Nam. These areas of excellence, however, could be undermined by the identified integrity risks. The university's mission to be a "leading national institution" and a "crucial driving force" is challenged by practices that suggest scientific isolation and dependency rather than global leadership and structural capacity. To fully realize its ambitious mission, it is recommended that Can Tho University leverages its foundational strengths in research quality to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its reputation for excellence is built on a transparent and sustainable model of scientific leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 0.287 is notably higher than the national average of -0.035, indicating a moderate deviation from the country's norm. This suggests the university is more susceptible to practices that can inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate warrants a review to ensure that these are not strategic attempts at “affiliation shopping” but rather reflect genuine, productive collaborations that align with the university's mission.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.381, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.749, which signals a medium risk level. This suggests a form of preventive isolation, where the university's internal quality controls are successfully insulating it from the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. This very low rate points to robust pre-publication review processes and a strong integrity culture that effectively prevents the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that might be affecting other institutions nationally.
With a Z-score of 1.470, the institution shows a significantly higher rate of self-citation compared to the national average of 0.192. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting that the university is more prone to these practices than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, but this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 1.712 for publications in discontinued journals is considerably higher than the national average of 1.127. This pattern reveals a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the university is more vulnerable than its national counterparts. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.864 for hyper-authored output is closely aligned with the national average of -0.822. This indicates a state of statistical normality, where the university's practices regarding author lists are consistent with the national context. The low scores for both the institution and the country suggest that author list inflation is not a prevalent issue, confirming that the university's collaborative patterns are typical for its environment and do not show signs of questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
A significant moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score at 1.857 compared to the national average of -0.112. This wide positive gap suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers, indicating that its overall impact is heavily reliant on external collaborations. A high value like this signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige is largely dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.887, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.501. This suggests that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. The very low incidence of extreme individual publication volumes indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over simple metric inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security indicates that the university is not overly reliant on its in-house journals. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves global visibility rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.413, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.313. This contrast suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present at the national level. A low value in this indicator shows a commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units, or 'salami slicing.' This responsible practice avoids artificially inflating productivity and prevents the distortion of scientific evidence, reflecting a culture that values substance over volume.
