| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.054 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.943 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.856 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.097 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.179 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.378 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.447 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.309 | 0.720 |
The Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, demonstrates a robust scientific integrity framework, reflected in its low overall risk score of 0.017. The institution exhibits exceptional control over authorship practices, research independence, and the selection of publication venues, indicating strong internal governance. Key strengths are evident in its very low risk signals for Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, and the minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its self-led research. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a critical alert regarding the Rate of Retracted Output and a high-exposure signal in Institutional Self-Citation. The institution's mission to foster "intellectually capable, innovative and entrepreneurial professionals" is powerfully supported by its thematic excellence, with top-tier national rankings in fields such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (3rd in India), Social Sciences (10th), and Engineering (11th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. Nevertheless, the high rate of retractions directly challenges this mission by suggesting that post-publication quality control issues could undermine the reliability of its scientific contributions. To fully align its operational integrity with its stated mission of excellence, it is recommended that the institution leverage its clear governance strengths to implement targeted interventions that address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing the trustworthiness and long-term impact of its research.
The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to affiliation practices, with a Z-score (-1.054) that is even lower than the national average (-0.927). This indicates exceptionally clear and transparent affiliation management, well below any threshold that might suggest strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The data confirms that multiple affiliations at the institution are handled with exemplary rigor, reflecting legitimate researcher mobility and partnerships rather than any form of "affiliation shopping."
The institution's Z-score for retracted output (0.943) is significantly higher than the national average (0.279), indicating that it is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. This high rate is a critical alert suggesting that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. A rate so far above the norm points to a potential weakness in the institution's integrity culture, possibly involving recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation and ensure the reliability of its contributions.
With a Z-score of 0.856, the institution demonstrates a higher propensity for institutional self-citation compared to the national average (0.520), indicating greater exposure to associated risks. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high value warns of potential endogamous impact inflation. It signals a risk of forming scientific 'echo chambers' where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by broader global community recognition.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience against a systemic national risk, with a low Z-score of -0.097 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 1.099. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the national trend of publishing in questionable outlets. The data indicates that the institution successfully performs due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, thereby avoiding the severe reputational risks and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical standards.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile regarding hyper-authorship (Z-score: -1.179), which is consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -1.024). This absence of risk signals indicates that authorship practices are well-governed and transparent. The data confirms that extensive author lists are not a common feature outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, effectively preventing issues like author list inflation and ensuring that individual accountability is not diluted by honorary or political authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.378 shows a complete absence of risk in this area, aligning with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.292). A low gap indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is strong and proportional to its overall collaborative impact. This is a clear sign of robust internal capacity and intellectual leadership, confirming that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, not dependent on external partners where it does not exercise primary leadership.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile in managing author productivity, with a Z-score of -0.447 that is notably lower than the national benchmark (-0.067). This indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. The data suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully mitigating the risks associated with extreme individual publication volumes, such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's activity in this area (Z-score: -0.268) is in perfect alignment with the national environment (Z-score: -0.250), reflecting a shared context of maximum scientific security. This indicates that there is no excessive dependence on in-house journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party. The low rate confirms that scientific production is overwhelmingly channeled through external, independent peer-review processes, ensuring global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution demonstrates effective, differentiated management of publication practices, with a Z-score of 0.309 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.720. This shows a capacity to moderate risks that appear more common in the country. The data suggests the institution is less prone to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This reflects a greater institutional focus on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
