| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.586 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.184 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.766 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
4.002 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.834 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.235 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.128 | 0.313 |
VNU University of Economics and Business demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by exceptional control over authorship practices and internal impact generation. With an overall score of 0.488, the institution shows very low risk in key areas such as leadership impact, hyperprolificity, and publishing in its own journals, indicating strong internal governance. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a medium-risk rate of multiple affiliations and, most critically, a significant-risk rate of publication in discontinued journals. These weaknesses directly challenge the institution's mission to provide "high-quality" and "sustainable" contributions. While the university holds respectable national rankings in its core thematic areas, including Economics, Econometrics and Finance (21st) and Business, Management and Accounting (26th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the practice of publishing in low-quality or predatory venues undermines this academic standing and contradicts the pursuit of excellence. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, it is imperative to address these integrity gaps, particularly by strengthening guidance and policies on selecting reputable publication channels.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.586, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.035. This suggests that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the higher rate here warrants a closer look to ensure these are the result of genuine partnerships rather than strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit. A review of affiliation patterns could help confirm that they align with productive research mobility and not with practices that could dilute institutional identity.
With a Z-score of -0.184, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, showcasing institutional resilience when compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.749. This positive differential suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly below the national average indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust, successfully preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a higher volume of retractions elsewhere.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.766, a low-risk value that contrasts favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.192. This indicates a strong capacity for external engagement and suggests that the university's control mechanisms are mitigating the risk of endogamy seen more broadly in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate demonstrates that it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' This reinforces the idea that its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, ensuring its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.002, a significant-risk level that sharply accentuates the vulnerabilities already present in the national system (Z-score of 1.127). This extremely high value is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It 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. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications that undermine its scientific mission.
The institution's Z-score of -0.834 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.822, reflecting a state of statistical normality. This indicates that the university's authorship practices are consistent with the expected standards for its context and size. As the rate is low, there are no signals of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. The data suggests that authorship patterns are appropriate for the institution's disciplines, distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -1.235, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, demonstrating low-profile consistency that is even stronger than the national low-risk average of -0.112. The absence of a significant positive gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is robust and not overly dependent on external partners. This is a sign of high scientific autonomy and structural prestige, suggesting that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, well below the national low-risk average of -0.501. This low-profile consistency signals a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that there are no systemic issues related to coercive authorship or practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. This finding aligns with a national environment that also shows low risk, but the institution's even lower score points to particularly sound internal research management.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects a perfect integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. The minimal reliance on in-house journals demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, effectively avoiding potential conflicts of interest or academic endogamy. This practice ensures that the university's scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.128, a low-risk value that indicates institutional resilience against the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.313). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively discouraging the practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By maintaining a low rate of bibliographic overlap, the university demonstrates a focus on publishing significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics. This commitment to substance over volume helps mitigate a risk that appears more common within its national scientific environment.
