| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.886 | -0.035 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | 0.749 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.728 | 0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.000 | 1.127 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.333 | -0.822 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.194 | -0.112 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.501 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.202 | 0.313 |
The Banking Academy of Vietnam demonstrates a solid overall performance in scientific integrity, characterized by robust internal governance and a profile that is, in most aspects, healthier than the national average. The institution exhibits exceptional control over risks related to authorship practices, citation patterns, and research independence, with very low risk signals in Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and the Impact Gap. This strong foundation is reflected in its notable SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly its leadership within Viet Nam in Social Sciences (Top 10), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 17), and Business, Management and Accounting (Top 27). However, this positive outlook is critically undermined by a significant-risk Z-score in publications within discontinued journals, a practice that directly conflicts with its mission to provide "high-quality" and "impactful research" in an "advanced, civilized educational environment." This vulnerability, along with a medium risk of redundant output, threatens to devalue its academic contributions and reputational standing. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, it is imperative that the Academy addresses these specific areas, thereby solidifying its role as a national leader committed to genuine excellence and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.886, compared to the national Z-score of -0.035, demonstrates a commendable alignment with national standards of integrity, showing no signals of problematic activity. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of collaboration, the Academy's very low score indicates that its affiliations are managed with transparency and are not being used strategically to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This reflects a solid and straightforward approach to collaborative attribution.
The Academy demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.193 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.749. This suggests that the institution's internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that appear more prevalent across the country. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign, indicating that pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, preventing the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that can damage an institution's integrity culture.
With a Z-score of -0.728, far below the national average of 0.192, the institution shows strong resilience against the risk of academic insularity. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, but the Academy's low rate indicates its research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-reference. This performance suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely driven by external recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
This indicator presents a critical alert. The institution's Z-score of 5.000 is exceptionally high, significantly amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 1.127). This high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a major concern regarding due diligence in selecting publication venues. It indicates that a significant portion of the Academy's research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publishing.
The institution maintains a very low Z-score of -1.333 in hyper-authored output, well below the national Z-score of -0.822, demonstrating a consistent and low-risk profile. As the Academy's core disciplines do not typically fall into 'Big Science' categories where extensive author lists are common, this low score is an excellent indicator of healthy authorship practices. It suggests that the institution successfully avoids author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The Academy's Z-score of -1.194, compared to the national average of -0.112, reflects a very healthy and sustainable research model. A low score in this indicator signifies that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, rather than being dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. This demonstrates strong internal capacity and confirms that the Academy's measured excellence is a direct result of its own research leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, significantly lower than the national Z-score of -0.501, the institution shows no signs of hyperprolificacy, aligning with best practices for scientific integrity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the feasibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The Academy's very low score in this area is a positive signal that it fosters a research environment focused on quality over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive or honorary authorship and prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, indicating perfect alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This demonstrates that the Academy is not overly dependent on its own journals for publication. By avoiding this potential conflict of interest, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of 0.202, while indicating a medium level of risk, is notably lower than the national average of 0.313. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the Academy is actively moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. While the presence of this indicator warrants attention, the data shows the institution is more successful than its peers in discouraging the practice of fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, thereby better upholding the principle of contributing significant new knowledge to the scientific record.
