Thuongmai University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Thuongmai University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, demonstrating significant strengths in research governance alongside critical vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall integrity score of 1.263, the institution excels in maintaining low rates of retractions, institutional self-citation, and hyper-prolific authorship, indicating robust internal quality controls and a healthy integration into the global research community. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its academic mission. However, this positive performance is severely undermined by a critical-level risk in publications within discontinued journals, and notable alerts in multiple affiliations and redundant output. The University's recognized prestige in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Arts and Humanities (Top 10 in Viet Nam), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 15), and Business, Management and Accounting (Top 20), is directly threatened by these integrity gaps. The practice of publishing in low-quality venues contradicts the mission's commitment to "prestige" and "international integration." To safeguard its reputation and fully realize its strategic vision, it is imperative that the University addresses these specific risks, particularly by implementing a rigorous publication strategy that guides researchers toward high-quality, reputable channels.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University's Z-score of 0.272 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.035). This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate notably higher than the country average warrants a review of affiliation policies. It is important to ensure that these patterns reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, a practice which could dilute the perceived value of the University's research partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.202, the University demonstrates exceptional institutional resilience, especially when compared to the medium-risk environment of the country (Z-score: 0.749). This strong negative score indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms and pre-publication supervision are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed nationally. This performance signifies a culture of responsibility where potential errors are managed proactively, protecting the integrity of the scientific record and reinforcing the institution's reputation for methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University shows a Z-score of -0.781, a figure that signals strong institutional resilience against the national trend (Z-score: 0.192). While a certain level of self-citation is normal, the institution's very low rate indicates that its research is not confined to an 'echo chamber' and receives broad validation from the external scientific community. This performance demonstrates a healthy integration into global research conversations and confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 7.689 is a critical alert, representing a significant accentuation of the risk already present at the national level (Z-score: 1.127). This extremely high value indicates a systemic vulnerability, suggesting that a substantial portion of the University's research is being channeled through outlets that fail to meet international ethical and quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and contradicts its mission of achieving international prestige. It is urgent to implement robust information literacy and due diligence policies to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The University displays a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.891, performing with slightly more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.822). This indicates that the institution effectively manages authorship practices, ensuring transparency and accountability. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authorship, the University successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorships, thereby safeguarding the principle of meaningful individual contribution.

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

With a Z-score of -0.355, the University demonstrates a prudent profile that is stronger than the national average (Z-score: -0.112). This favorable score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is sustainable and built upon its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. The minimal gap suggests that excellence is generated internally and not overly dependent on the leadership of external partners, reflecting a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem poised for continued growth.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University's Z-score of -1.413 reflects a very low-risk profile and a consistent alignment with the controlled national standard (Z-score: -0.501). The complete absence of risk signals in this area underscores a strong institutional focus on research quality over sheer quantity. This indicates a healthy academic environment that discourages practices such as coercive authorship or productivity at the expense of meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony within an environment of maximum scientific security. This alignment shows that the institution avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with excessive reliance on in-house journals. By favoring external, independent peer review, the University ensures its research is validated against global standards, enhancing its visibility and credibility on the international stage.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.558, the University shows high exposure to this risk, surpassing the national average (Z-score: 0.313) within a shared medium-risk context. This pattern suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where studies are divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This tendency not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.