| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.023 | 0.097 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | 0.676 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.358 | 0.001 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.493 | 1.552 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.966 | -0.880 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.766 | -0.166 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
3.635 | 0.121 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.103 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.143 |
City University Malaysia presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional control alongside specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.797, the institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a very low incidence of redundant publications and publications in institutional journals, effectively isolating itself from national risk trends in these areas. This robust internal governance is a key asset. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Mathematics, Engineering, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. However, this academic performance is contrasted by a critical risk signal in the rate of hyperprolific authors, which significantly deviates from national norms and poses a direct challenge to the university's mission. This mission, centered on producing "high-quality," "socially responsible," and "ethical" leaders, is undermined when quantitative output metrics appear to overshadow the principles of meaningful and rigorous scientific contribution. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational goals, the institution is advised to leverage its proven control mechanisms to urgently address this critical outlier and proactively manage its medium-risk indicators, thereby reinforcing its commitment to genuine academic excellence and integrity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.023 in this indicator, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.097. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context, this score indicates that the institution is more exposed to this particular risk than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This heightened exposure suggests a need for closer monitoring of affiliation practices to ensure they reflect genuine scientific partnership rather than a pursuit of institutional ranking advantages.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution demonstrates a low rate of retracted publications, a positive signal that contrasts with the medium-risk level observed nationally (0.676). This suggests a notable degree of institutional resilience, where internal quality control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks present in the wider environment. This performance indicates that the university's pre-publication review and supervision processes are effective, fostering a culture of integrity that responsibly corrects the scientific record without showing signs of the systemic failures that a higher rate might imply.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.358, while the national average is 0.001. Both fall within the medium-risk category, but the institution's higher value points to a greater exposure to this risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate warns of a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers,' where the institution's work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the university's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of 2.493 for publications in discontinued journals is significantly higher than the national average of 1.552. While both are categorized as medium risk, the university's score indicates a high exposure to this practice. This pattern is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a notable portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable resources into 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.966, which is slightly more favorable than the national average of -0.880. This prudent profile, situated within a low-risk context for both the center and the country, indicates that the institution manages its authorship processes with more rigor than the national standard. This performance suggests a healthy approach to collaboration, effectively avoiding the risks of author list inflation. By maintaining this control, the institution ensures that authorship reflects genuine contribution, thereby preserving individual accountability and the transparency of its research output.
The university shows a Z-score of 0.766 in this indicator, a moderate deviation into medium risk compared to the country's low-risk profile of -0.166. This gap suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to build more structural, internal capacity for high-impact research.
With a Z-score of 3.635, the institution presents a significant risk level that starkly contrasts with the country's medium-risk average of 0.121. This result indicates that the university is not just following a national trend but is actively amplifying a vulnerability present in the system. Such an extreme volume of publications by a few individuals challenges the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and serves as a critical alert. This imbalance between quantity and quality points to potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and require urgent qualitative review by management.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (1.103). This is a significant strength, indicating a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent peer review. This practice reinforces the credibility of its scientific output and ensures it is tested against international competitive standards.
The university achieves a Z-score of -1.186, a very low-risk value that effectively disconnects it from the medium-risk trend seen across the country (0.143). This preventive isolation is a strong indicator of scientific integrity. It shows that the institution's research culture prioritizes substantial contributions over artificially inflating productivity. By avoiding the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units—the university upholds the quality of the scientific evidence it produces and avoids overburdening the peer-review system with fragmented, low-novelty work.
