| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.153 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.827 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.085 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
8.682 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.272 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.339 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.591 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.820 | 0.313 |
Ho Chi Minh University of Banking presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 2.966. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining scientific autonomy and responsible authorship practices, as evidenced by very low-risk indicators in intellectual leadership (Ni_difference), hyper-authorship, and use of institutional journals. However, these strengths are overshadowed by critical vulnerabilities in post-publication integrity and dissemination strategy. Alarming rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications (salami slicing) represent significant threats to its academic reputation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a strong national position in key areas, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 6th in Viet Nam) and Business, Management and Accounting (16th). While the institution's mission was not available for this analysis, these identified risks directly conflict with the universal academic values of excellence and rigor. To safeguard its leadership in its core disciplines, it is imperative to implement robust pre-publication quality controls and targeted training on ethical dissemination practices.
The institution demonstrates a prudent and well-managed approach to academic collaboration, with a Z-score of -0.153, which indicates a more rigorous control over this practice than the national standard (Z-score of -0.035). While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, this controlled rate suggests that the university effectively avoids strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, ensuring that its collaborative footprint is both authentic and transparent.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 3.827 in this indicator, a value that significantly amplifies the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.749). This rate suggests that issues may extend beyond the honest correction of errors and points toward a potential systemic failure in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Such a high score is a serious warning that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor could be compromising the institution's integrity culture, demanding an immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of 1.085, the institution shows a higher exposure to the risks of self-citation compared to the national average (Z-score of 0.192), even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This elevated rate warns of a potential tendency toward an academic "echo chamber," where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks creating an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the university's perceived influence might be oversized by internal citation practices rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 8.682 for publications in discontinued journals constitutes a severe red flag, indicating that it is amplifying a vulnerability that is already a concern at the national level (Z-score of 1.127). This extremely high value signals a critical lapse in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage. There is an urgent need to implement information literacy programs to prevent the waste of resources on "predatory" or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution exhibits exemplary control over authorship practices, with a Z-score of -1.272, which is well below the already low-risk national average of -0.822. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a healthy and consistent approach to assigning credit. It indicates that the university successfully avoids the trend of author list inflation, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency. This practice effectively distinguishes its legitimate collaborative work from the questionable "honorary" or political authorship seen elsewhere.
A key institutional strength is its demonstrated scientific autonomy, reflected in a very low-risk Z-score of -1.339, far surpassing the low-risk national benchmark (-0.112). This result indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and internally driven, not dependent on external partners. The impact of its research is a direct result of its own intellectual leadership, a crucial factor for building sustainable, long-term academic excellence and ensuring that its contributions are foundational rather than peripheral.
The institution's Z-score of 0.591 signifies a medium level of risk, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (-0.501). This suggests a greater sensitivity to the pressures of high-volume publishing among its researchers. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, this indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It warrants a review of institutional incentives to ensure they do not inadvertently encourage practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, which prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution is in perfect synchrony with the secure national environment regarding the use of its own journals, with its Z-score of -0.268 matching the national average exactly. This total alignment at a very low-risk level is a positive indicator of good governance. It demonstrates that the university avoids the risks of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest by ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation strengthens the global visibility and credibility of its scientific output, preventing the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication records.
A significant risk is identified in the rate of redundant publications, where the institution's Z-score of 2.820 indicates it is accentuating a vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score of 0.313). This high value is a strong warning against the practice of "salami slicing," where a single coherent study is fragmented into multiple minimal units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
