| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.243 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.173 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.338 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.683 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.264 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.136 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.222 | 0.313 |
With an overall integrity score of 0.182, Ho Chi Minh City University of Economics and Law demonstrates a predominantly robust and responsible research profile, characterized by significant strengths in operational governance. The institution exhibits exceptional control over authorship practices, affiliation management, and intellectual leadership, with very low risk signals in hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and the gap between its overall impact and that of its self-led research. However, this strong foundation is critically undermined by a significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, a practice that poses a direct threat to its scientific reputation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strong national standing in key areas like Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 10th in Viet Nam) and Business, Management and Accounting (14th) is built on a solid research base. Yet, the identified risk in publication channels directly contradicts its mission to promote societal development through "high-quality research." To fully align its practices with its mission of excellence and social responsibility, the university should prioritize implementing stringent due diligence policies and training for journal selection. Addressing this single vulnerability will secure its scientific legacy and solidify its leadership position.
The institution's Z-score of -1.243, compared to the national average of -0.035, indicates an exceptionally low incidence of this risk factor. This result demonstrates a clear and consistent policy regarding researcher affiliations, operating at an even higher standard of integrity than the already low-risk national environment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university’s data shows no signs of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a transparent and well-governed research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of 0.173, the institution presents a medium risk level that is notably lower than the national average of 0.749. This suggests a differentiated management approach where, despite being exposed to the same systemic pressures as its national peers, the university's internal quality control mechanisms appear more effective at mitigating potential issues before they escalate. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can signal systemic failures. In this context, the university's ability to maintain a lower rate indicates a more resilient integrity culture, though the medium-level signal still warrants ongoing monitoring of its pre-publication review processes.
The institution's Z-score of 0.338 is higher than the national average of 0.192, placing it in a position of high exposure to this particular risk within a national context of medium concern. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate suggests a greater tendency toward scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' compared to its peers. This pattern warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by broad recognition from the global scientific community, meriting a review of its citation practices.
The institution's Z-score of 2.683 represents a significant risk and a critical alert, dramatically amplifying the medium-level vulnerability observed at the national level (1.127). This finding indicates that a substantial portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. Such a high proportion constitutes a severe reputational risk, suggesting an urgent and systemic need to improve due diligence and information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices that compromise the integrity of their work.
With a Z-score of -1.264, far below the national average of -0.822, the institution demonstrates an exemplary and low-risk profile in authorship. This absence of risk signals, which is even more pronounced than the national standard, suggests that authorship lists are managed with high transparency and accountability. In fields outside of "Big Science," this low rate confirms that the university effectively avoids practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships, reinforcing a culture where credit is assigned based on meaningful contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -1.136 is exceptionally low, contrasting sharply with the national average of -0.112. This result is a key indicator of scientific maturity and sustainability. It signals that the university's research prestige is structurally sound and built upon genuine internal capacity, as the impact of work led by its own researchers is strong. This performance demonstrates that its excellence is not dependent on an exogenous or strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, but rather stems from its own robust research programs.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.501, indicating a very low-risk environment for this indicator. This demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, with no evidence of extreme individual publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The data suggests an absence of dynamics like coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, reflecting a culture that values substantive research.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect synchrony with the national average, reflecting total alignment within an environment of maximum scientific security for this indicator. This very low rate demonstrates a strong commitment to seeking external, independent peer review for its research. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.222 indicates a low level of risk, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national environment (0.313). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms and academic culture effectively mitigate the systemic tendency toward data fragmentation. The data points to a commendable practice of publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing research into minimal publishable units, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
