| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.283 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.493 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.694 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.293 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.108 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.333 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.187 | 0.313 |
Quy Nhon University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.055 indicating a predominantly healthy research environment. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over multiple key indicators, including a very low rate of retracted output and hyperprolific authors, often performing better than the national average. This solid foundation supports its standing in key academic fields, such as its notable ranking in Chemistry according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong performance is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. These specific vulnerabilities could potentially undermine the University's mission to foster "high-quality human resources" and "effectively serve sustainable development," as they may compromise the perceived quality and impact of its research. To fully align its practices with its stated mission of excellence, the institution is advised to focus strategic efforts on improving due diligence in publication channels and clarifying affiliation policies, thereby securing its long-term reputational integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.283 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.035, suggesting a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area compared to its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This divergence from the national standard warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that all affiliations are the product of substantive collaboration and accurately reflect the institution's contributions.
The institution demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally. With an institutional Z-score of -0.493, significantly lower than the country's medium-risk score of 0.749, the university shows that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust. This very low rate of retractions suggests that, unlike the trend in its environment, the institution's pre-publication review processes are effectively preventing systemic errors or potential malpractice, reflecting a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor.
The university displays strong institutional resilience against the systemic risk of self-citation prevalent in the country. Its Z-score of -0.694 is well below the national average of 0.192, indicating that its control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the tendency towards endogamous impact inflation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's low rate suggests its research is validated by the broader scientific community rather than within an internal 'echo chamber,' ensuring its academic influence is based on external recognition.
The institution's Z-score of 2.293 indicates a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, a rate notably higher than the already medium-risk national average of 1.127. This pattern suggests the center is more prone than its peers to channeling its scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authored publications, with a Z-score of -1.108 that is even lower than the national standard of -0.822. This indicates that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than its peers. The data suggests that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of author list inflation, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
With a Z-score of -0.333, which is lower than the national average of -0.112, the institution demonstrates a prudent and balanced approach to its research collaborations. This low gap indicates that the impact of its overall output is well-aligned with the impact of the research it leads. This suggests that the university's scientific prestige is built on strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being overly dependent on external partners, signaling a sustainable and structurally sound research ecosystem.
The institution shows excellent low-profile consistency in managing author productivity, with a Z-score of -1.413 reflecting a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a figure well below the already low national average of -0.501. This alignment with a low-risk national standard indicates a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. The data suggests the institution effectively avoids the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or diluted intellectual contributions, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment reflects a shared understanding of the appropriate role of in-house journals, likely for training and local dissemination, without over-reliance. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that the bulk of its research undergoes independent external peer review and competes for global visibility.
The university demonstrates clear institutional resilience, as its Z-score of -0.187 indicates a low rate of redundant output, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.313. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the risk of 'salami slicing.' By discouraging the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units, the institution promotes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby contributing responsibly to the scientific record.
