| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.130 | -0.549 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.051 | -0.060 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.327 | 0.615 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.783 | 0.511 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.354 | -0.625 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.568 | -0.335 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.266 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.595 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.027 |
Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.319. The institution exhibits significant strengths with very low risk levels in a majority of indicators, including Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. These results point to a solid foundation of good governance and ethical research practices. However, this strong performance is contrasted by two critical vulnerabilities: a medium risk in Retracted Output and, most notably, a significant risk in publications within Discontinued Journals. These weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to foster "science, technology and innovation with ethics," as they suggest potential gaps in quality control and due diligence that could undermine the credibility and impact of its research. The university's strong positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Veterinary (12th in Thailand), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (25th), and Business, Management and Accounting (26th), provides a powerful platform for growth. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, it is recommended that the institution urgently addresses its journal selection and pre-publication review processes, thereby ensuring its commendable research output contributes effectively to national development without reputational compromise.
The institution shows a very low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -1.130), a signal that is even more discreet than the already low national average (Z-score: -0.549). This demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to collaboration that aligns with the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, the university's data indicates an absence of risk signals associated with strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” reflecting solid governance in managing academic attributions.
The university's rate of retracted output (Z-score: 0.051) presents a moderate deviation from the national context, where this risk is not present (Z-score: -0.060). This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to factors that can lead to retractions. A rate significantly higher than the average, as seen here, can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It may indicate that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are failing more frequently than elsewhere, suggesting a need for immediate qualitative verification by management to reinforce methodological rigor and responsible supervision.
With a low rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: -0.327), the university demonstrates strong resilience, effectively mitigating a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 0.615). The country's medium risk level points to a broader tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' In contrast, the institution's low score indicates that its academic influence is validated through sufficient external scrutiny rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, successfully avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
This indicator represents a critical alert, as the institution's significant Z-score of 3.783 shows it is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.511). A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a serious concern regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the university's 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 an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a very low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.354), well below the national average (Z-score: -0.625). This absence of risk signals is consistent with the national standard and points toward transparent and accountable authorship practices. The data suggests that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and problematic 'honorary' or political authorship, ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful individual contributions.
The university exhibits a prudent profile regarding its collaboration impact, with a Z-score of -0.568 that indicates more rigor than the national standard (-0.335). A large positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners. The institution's negative score suggests the opposite: the impact of research led by its own authors is strong and self-sufficient. This reflects a commendable internal capacity for generating high-quality science, where excellence metrics result from genuine structural capabilities rather than a strategic dependence on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship, a rate significantly lower than the already low national average (-0.266). This result aligns with national standards and demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The data suggests the university effectively avoids risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of publication metrics.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends in this area. Its very low Z-score of -0.268 contrasts sharply with the medium risk level observed across the country (Z-score: 0.595), where reliance on in-house journals is more common. This indicates the university avoids the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, it enhances its global visibility and relies on standard competitive validation rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's practices show a very low risk of redundant output, with a Z-score of -1.186 that is well below the national average (-0.027). This absence of risk signals is consistent with the national standard and points to a research culture that values significant new knowledge over artificially inflated productivity. The data suggests a strong aversion to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units—thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoiding an unnecessary burden on the peer review system.
