| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.020 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.400 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.069 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.835 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.144 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.496 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.677 | 0.313 |
Hanoi University of Mining and Geology presents a scientific integrity profile with an overall score of -0.251, indicating a position slightly below the global average but with notable areas of strength and opportunities for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in key areas, maintaining very low-risk levels for Retracted Output, Redundant Output, and publications in its own journals, effectively insulating itself from national trends of concern. However, areas requiring attention include a moderate deviation from national norms in Multiple Affiliations and the Impact Gap, alongside a higher-than-average rate of Institutional Self-Citation. These risk signals warrant a review to ensure they do not undermine the institution's mission to provide "high quality research" and uphold "international standards." The University's strong academic positioning, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in core fields such as Energy, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Environmental Science, provides a solid foundation for this work. By proactively addressing the identified vulnerabilities, the institution can better align its operational practices with its strategic vision, reinforcing its commitment to excellence and strengthening its role as a leader in earth sciences and mining.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.020, which shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.035. This suggests the center is more sensitive to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate that is notably higher than the surrounding environment can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This divergence warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration, rather than "affiliation shopping" practices that could dilute the institution's distinct academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.381, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retractions, a figure that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.749. This positive result indicates a successful preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Such a low score suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance signifies a strong culture of integrity and responsible supervision, effectively shielding the institution from the systemic vulnerabilities that can lead to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere.
The institution's Z-score of 0.400 is notably higher than the country's average of 0.192, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk factor. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the university is more prone to showing alert signals. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines; however, this disproportionately high rate could signal the formation of a scientific "echo chamber." This dynamic warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal validation rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.069, showcasing significant institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 1.127. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. This strong performance indicates that the institution is successfully guiding its researchers away from dissemination channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. By exercising this due diligence, the university protects its reputation and avoids wasting valuable resources on "predatory" or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.835, the institution's activity level is in line with the national average of -0.822, reflecting a state of statistical normality. Both scores fall within the low-risk category, indicating that the prevalence of publications with extensive author lists is as expected for the context and size. This indicator serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential "honorary" authorship practices, and the current low level suggests that individual accountability and transparency in authorship are being appropriately maintained.
The institution's Z-score of 0.144 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.112, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not play a leading role.
The institution's Z-score of -0.496 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.501, indicating a situation of statistical normality. Both profiles are firmly in the low-risk category, suggesting a healthy balance between productivity and quality. This indicator monitors for extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The current low value indicates an absence of risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing the integrity of the institution's scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is identical to the national average, the institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment in a very low-risk area is a sign of maximum scientific security. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party. By minimizing reliance on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as potential "fast tracks" to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.677 places it in the very low-risk category, a stark and positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.313. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the problematic risk dynamics observed in the country. A low value in this indicator signals a commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than engaging in "salami slicing"—the practice of fragmenting research into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This approach upholds the integrity of the available scientific evidence and respects the academic review system.
