| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.266 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.306 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.912 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.521 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.092 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.728 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.824 | 0.313 |
Hanoi University of Natural Resources and Environment presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.598 reflecting both significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in maintaining very low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and publication in its own journals, indicating a strong foundation of external validation and responsible authorship practices. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by significant-to-medium risks, most notably a critical rate of publication in Discontinued Journals, alongside concerning levels of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) and a dependency on external leadership for research impact. These vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the credibility of its research output and its reputation for academic excellence.
According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's core thematic strengths lie in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science. While the institution's strong performance in several integrity indicators supports its academic mission, the identified risks, particularly the use of low-quality publication channels and practices that inflate productivity metrics, directly challenge any commitment to scientific excellence and social responsibility. These practices risk devaluing the important research conducted in its key areas. A strategic focus on enhancing publication due diligence and reinforcing quality-over-quantity research principles will be crucial to protect its academic reputation and ensure its scientific contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of 0.266 contrasts with the national average of -0.035. This moderate deviation suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this score serves as a signal that the rate is unusually high for the national context. It warrants a review to ensure that these affiliations are the result of genuine scientific collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could distort the university's perceived contribution to the scientific landscape.
With a Z-score of -0.306, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retractions, which is notably better than the country's medium-risk average of 0.749. This suggests a degree of institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. This low score indicates that the university's pre-publication review processes are effective, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to a high volume of retractions and subsequent damage to institutional integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.912, a very low-risk value that stands in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.192. This demonstrates a pattern of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. Such a low rate is a positive indicator of robust external validation and integration within the global scientific community. It suggests the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics, effectively avoiding the "echo chambers" that can limit scientific discourse and impact.
The institution's Z-score of 3.521 is a significant risk indicator, drastically higher than the national medium-risk average of 1.127. This finding points to a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. This critically high score is a severe alert, indicating that a substantial portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and signals an urgent need to implement training in information literacy to prevent the misallocation of research efforts and resources toward predatory or low-impact publishing.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.092, while the national average is -0.822. Although both are in the low-risk category, the institution's score is slightly higher, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while hyper-authorship is not a systemic problem, there are signals that warrant review before they escalate. It is important to ensure that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency and preventing the dilution of responsibility through practices like 'honorary' authorship.
With a Z-score of 1.728, the institution shows a medium-risk gap, diverging significantly from the country's low-risk average of -0.112. This moderate deviation highlights a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. The score indicates a sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners and not reflective of its own structural capacity. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is much higher than the impact of research led internally, invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capabilities or from a supporting role in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is well within the very low-risk category, performing even better than the national low-risk average of -0.501. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This excellent result indicates that the university fosters a research environment that avoids the pitfalls of hyper-productivity, such as coercive authorship or prioritizing publication volume over scientific quality. It suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, reinforcing the integrity of the institution's scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects a perfect integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This very low rate indicates that the university is not overly reliant on its own publication channels, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.824, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.313, despite both falling into the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals for this behavior than its environment. This value warns of the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
