| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.357 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.150 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.522 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.265 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.960 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.775 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
6.404 | 0.313 |
Vietnam Maritime University demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.800, reflecting a complex profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside critical areas requiring immediate strategic intervention. The institution exhibits exemplary control over practices such as institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in its own journals, indicating a strong foundation of academic independence and a focus on quality over quantity. This operational rigor is further evidenced by its strong thematic positioning, particularly in Engineering, where it ranks 30th in Viet Nam according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive profile is severely challenged by significant risks in the rates of retracted output and redundant publications ('salami slicing'). These weaknesses directly contradict the university's mission to produce "high-quality human resources" and foster "advanced technology transfer," as they undermine the credibility and impact of its research. To fully realize its vision as a national key university serving Vietnam's sea economy, it is imperative to address these integrity vulnerabilities, ensuring that its scientific output is as robust and reliable as its strategic ambition.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.357, which shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.035. This suggests that the university is more sensitive to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the observed divergence warrants a review to ensure these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." A proactive verification of affiliation policies would help maintain transparency and ensure that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.
With a Z-score of 1.150, the institution shows a significant rate of retractions, amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system, which has a score of 0.749. This high rate is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly above average suggests a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This may point to recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the university's scientific reputation and ensure the reliability of its research output.
The university demonstrates institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.522, a figure that is notably healthier than the national average of 0.192. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic insularity observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the "echo chambers" that can inflate impact through endogamous validation. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.
The institution's Z-score of 1.265 indicates high exposure to this risk, trending slightly above the national average of 1.127. This pattern suggests the center is more prone than its peers to publishing in channels that fail to meet international standards. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.960, which is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.822. This low rate indicates a healthy and transparent approach to authorship attribution. By avoiding the inflation of author lists, the university reinforces individual accountability and clarity in contributions. This responsible management of authorship practices ensures that credit is assigned appropriately, reflecting genuine collaboration rather than the dilution of responsibility through honorary or unjustified co-authorships.
With a Z-score of 1.775, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average is -0.112. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the university's overall scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. A high value here invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead. Bridging this gap is crucial for building a robust, independent, and sustainable research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating low-profile consistency and performing even better than the national average of -0.501. This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, steering clear of the potential imbalances that extreme publication volumes can create. This result suggests that the university fosters an environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is prioritized over sheer metrics, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is perfectly aligned with the national average, also -0.268, reflecting complete integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. This alignment demonstrates a strong commitment to seeking external, independent peer review for its research. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific production, ensuring it meets international standards.
The institution's Z-score of 6.404 is a critical red flag, indicating a severe accentuation of a risk that is present but far less pronounced at the national level (0.313). This extremely high value strongly suggests a systemic practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where single studies are divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system but also prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. An urgent and thorough review of publication ethics and authorship guidelines is required to address this issue.
