| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.067 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.484 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.347 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.129 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.193 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.269 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.313 |
Thai Nguyen University of Education presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.196 indicating performance that is well-aligned with global standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for a majority of indicators, including Retracted Output, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output, suggesting a strong culture of quality control and responsible research practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national norm in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a higher-than-average tendency toward Institutional Self-Citation. These vulnerabilities, alongside a systemic pattern of publishing in discontinued journals, warrant review. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a notable national position in Social Sciences, Chemistry, and Mathematics. While the institution's mission statement was not available for direct comparison, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is inherently threatened by risks that could create 'echo chambers' or channel valuable research into low-quality outlets. By proactively addressing these specific medium-risk areas, Thai Nguyen University of Education can further solidify its strong integrity foundation and enhance the global credibility of its key research domains.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.067, which contrasts with the national average of -0.035. This moderate deviation suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this divergence from the country's baseline warrants a review. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” and monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure all affiliations reflect substantive collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.484, the institution demonstrates an exceptional profile, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.749. This represents a case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed more broadly in its environment. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the norm, especially when the national context shows some pressure, is a strong indicator of effective and systemic quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This result points to a mature and resilient institutional integrity culture.
The university's Z-score of 0.347 is notably higher than the country's average of 0.192. This indicates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the institution is more prone to these practices than its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution's Z-score of 1.129 is nearly identical to the national average of 1.127. This alignment points to a systemic pattern, where the risk level likely reflects shared practices or challenges at a national level rather than an issue unique to the university. Nevertheless, this indicator remains a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting a need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.193, which is even lower than the country's already low-risk average of -0.822. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with a healthy national standard. This result indicates that authorship practices at the institution are transparent and accountable, successfully distinguishing between necessary collaboration and potential 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.269, the institution displays a more favorable balance than the national average of -0.112. This prudent profile suggests the university manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. A low, negative score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead driven by strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This reflects a sustainable model where excellence metrics result from genuine, home-grown research capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.501. This finding represents low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is in harmony with the low-risk national environment. This very low score is a positive sign that the university fosters a healthy balance between productivity and quality, avoiding potential issues such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average. This perfect alignment demonstrates integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security in this area. The very low rate indicates a strong commitment to seeking independent external peer review for its research, avoiding potential conflicts of interest or academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific output, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.186, a stark and positive contrast to the national average of 0.313. This is a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. While citing previous work is normal, the university's very low score indicates that it effectively prevents the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, new knowledge strengthens the scientific record and demonstrates a focus on substance over volume.
