University of Phayao

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Phayao demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by significant strengths in operational governance alongside specific, high-priority areas for improvement. With an overall integrity score of 0.197, the institution exhibits exemplary control over authorship practices and the use of institutional publication channels, outperforming national trends and signaling a robust commitment to external validation. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. The university's research excellence is particularly notable in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top national positions in Earth and Planetary Sciences (Top 5), Environmental Science (Top 5), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (Top 11). However, this strong performance is contrasted by a critical vulnerability in the Rate of Redundant Output, alongside medium-level risks in self-citation and publication in discontinued journals. These practices directly challenge the university's mission to cultivate "moral, ethical, wisdom based" graduates, as they can prioritize metric inflation over genuine scientific contribution. To fully align its research culture with its stated values of excellence and social responsibility, it is recommended that the institution leverage this report to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to producing high-integrity research and globally competitive graduates.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Phayao shows a Z-score of -1.042, which indicates a very low incidence of this practice, well below the national average of -0.549. This result reflects a commendable level of clarity and consistency in how institutional affiliations are declared. The institution's operational silence in this area aligns with, and even surpasses, the low-risk standard observed nationally. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's low score suggests that its researchers' affiliations are managed with transparency, avoiding practices like “affiliation shopping” and contributing to a clear and honest representation of its collaborative network.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.362, the institution maintains a low rate of retracted publications, performing more rigorously than the national standard (Z-score of -0.060). This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are effective. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible error correction, a consistently low rate is a positive indicator of methodological soundness and research integrity. This performance indicates that systemic failures in quality control are not a significant concern, reinforcing the institution's capacity to produce reliable scientific output.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university presents a Z-score of 2.043 in this indicator, a medium-risk value that is notably higher than the national average of 0.615. This suggests the institution is more exposed than its national peers to practices that could lead to scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic creates a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.687 places it in the medium-risk category, showing a higher exposure to this issue compared to the national average of 0.511. This indicates that the university is more prone than its peers to channeling its research into outlets of questionable quality. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests a significant portion of its scientific production may be directed to media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.125, the University of Phayao demonstrates a very low rate of hyper-authorship, a figure that is well-aligned with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.625). This consistency indicates that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and appropriate for its disciplinary focus. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. The university's very low score is a positive signal that it successfully distinguishes between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, fostering a culture of clear and responsible credit attribution.

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

The university's Z-score of -0.232, while in the low-risk category, signals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.335. This subtle difference suggests that while the institution's scientific prestige is largely self-generated, there is a minor but observable reliance on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap can indicate that an institution's prestige is dependent and exogenous rather than structural. Although the current risk is low, this signal warrants a review to ensure that the university continues to build its internal capacity for intellectual leadership, thereby securing the long-term sustainability of its research impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of 0.507, a medium-risk level that marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.266). This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to factors that encourage extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and require a review of internal incentive structures.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University of Phayao has a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low reliance on its own journals and representing a case of preventive isolation from a national trend. This is a significant strength, as the national context shows a medium-risk Z-score of 0.595. By not replicating the risk dynamics observed in its environment, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. This low rate demonstrates a commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of 4.286, the university displays a significant-risk level for redundant output, a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.027. This atypical risk activity is a critical finding that requires a deep integrity assessment. The high value strongly alerts to the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system but also prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, demanding urgent attention from institutional governance.