National University of Public Service

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The National University of Public Service demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall performance score of -0.197 that indicates a risk level significantly below the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its clear operational independence from certain systemic risks prevalent at the national level, particularly in its very low rates of hyper-authored output and publication in institutional journals. These strengths are complemented by a resilient performance in managing institutional self-citation and ensuring its scientific impact is driven by internal leadership. While areas such as the rate of multiple affiliations and redundant output present moderate, nationally-aligned risks, the university's overall governance appears effective. This strong integrity foundation supports its notable thematic rankings, particularly in Arts and Humanities, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Business, Management and Accounting, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This commitment to sound scientific practice directly reinforces the university's mission to be an "effective educational and academic base for state-building," as the credibility and trustworthiness of its research are paramount for developing efficient and ethical public service. To fully align with its mission, the university is encouraged to consolidate its exemplary practices and address the minor vulnerabilities identified, thereby solidifying its role as a national benchmark for academic excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.695 is closely aligned with the national average of 0.726, indicating that its approach to author affiliations reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the country's research ecosystem. This suggests that the observed rate is likely influenced by shared practices or regulations at a national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this moderate risk level warrants attention. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” and its prevalence at both institutional and national levels suggests a need for clear internal guidelines to ensure all affiliations are transparent and substantively justified.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.174, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.233, although both fall within a low-risk range. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that the university's quality control mechanisms may be slightly less stringent than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and some can signify responsible supervision in correcting unintentional errors. However, a rate that begins to diverge from the norm, even minimally, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may have room for improvement to prevent systemic failures and protect the institution's integrity culture from potential recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university exhibits strong institutional resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.728 that is significantly lower than the country's medium-risk score of 0.310. This demonstrates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk observed nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from disproportionately high rates. This low value is a positive indicator that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, ensuring its work undergoes sufficient external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.085 is slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.189, signaling an incipient vulnerability despite both values being in the low-risk category. This suggests the university may be slightly more exposed than its national peers to publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This minor signal warrants a review of institutional guidance on publication ethics to ensure that research is not inadvertently channeled through media that fail to meet international standards, thereby avoiding reputational risks and the misallocation of resources to low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -1.187 placing it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.352. This indicates the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of potential author list inflation observed elsewhere in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, the institution's very low score suggests a strong culture of accountability and transparency in authorship. This is a significant strength, signaling that authorship is likely awarded based on substantive contribution rather than 'honorary' or political practices.

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

With a Z-score of -0.793, the institution shows remarkable resilience against the national trend, where the country's score is 0.826. This indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not dependent on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap, as seen at the national level, can signal a sustainability risk where excellence is exogenous. The institution's low score, however, suggests its high-impact work is a result of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, a key indicator of a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.525, which is even lower than the national low-risk average of -0.462. This suggests the institution manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's controlled rate in this area is a positive sign, indicating a healthy balance between quantity and quality and a lower risk of practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 (very low risk) marks a clear case of preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (0.703). This result is highly positive, showing the university does not replicate a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution demonstrates differentiated management of this risk, with a Z-score of 0.354 that is lower than the national average of 0.409, although both are in the medium-risk category. This shows the university is moderating a risk that appears common in the country more effectively than its peers. This indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing'. While the risk is still present, the institution's better-than-average performance suggests a stronger focus on publishing significant new knowledge over prioritizing sheer volume.