| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.223 | -0.073 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.137 | -0.152 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.566 | -0.387 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.401 | -0.445 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.505 | 0.135 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.134 | 0.306 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.623 | -0.151 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.227 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.173 | -0.003 |
Queen's University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.188 that indicates a performance slightly better than the global baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its rigorous control over publication channels, evidenced by very low-risk levels for output in discontinued or institutional journals, and a prudent management of self-citation and redundant publications. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to hyper-authored publications and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These findings are contextualized by the university's strong academic standing, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting national leadership in key areas such as Energy (ranked 7th in Canada), Medicine (12th), and Arts and Humanities (14th). While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified vulnerabilities, particularly those related to authorship and impact dependency, could challenge any institutional commitment to fostering genuine academic excellence and leadership. To safeguard its reputation and ensure the sustainability of its research enterprise, it is recommended that the university develops targeted policies to address authorship transparency and to bolster the impact of its internally-led research, thereby aligning its operational practices with its evident thematic strengths.
The institution's Z-score of -0.223 is notably lower than the national average of -0.073. This reflects a prudent profile, suggesting that the university manages its affiliation processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility and partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates strong governance that effectively prevents strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that academic contributions are clearly and accurately attributed.
With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution's performance is in close alignment with the national average of -0.152. This indicates a state of statistical normality, where the level of retracted output is as expected for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this alignment suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control and post-publication correction mechanisms are functioning effectively and are consistent with the standards observed across the Canadian academic landscape.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.566, which is significantly lower than the country's average of -0.387. This prudent profile demonstrates a commendably low reliance on internal citations. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's minimal rate signals a strong commitment to external validation and a low risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This practice reinforces the global recognition of its academic influence, showing that its impact is driven by the broader scientific community rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.401 is almost identical to the national average of -0.445, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment reflects a shared commitment to maximum scientific security within the country. The near-total absence of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards indicates excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively mitigating reputational risks and avoiding the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.505 indicates a medium risk level and is significantly higher than the national average of 0.135. This suggests a high exposure to this risk factor, making the center more prone to showing alert signals than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this elevated rate outside of those norms can be a signal of author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This disparity warrants a review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 1.134, the institution shows a considerably wider impact gap than the national average of 0.306. This high exposure suggests that the university is more prone to dependency risk 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. This finding suggests that a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.623, which is substantially lower than the Canadian average of -0.151. This demonstrates a prudent profile, indicating that the university manages research productivity with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, the institution's low rate of extreme individual publication volumes mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, pointing to a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in very close alignment with the national average of -0.227. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared national standard of avoiding potential conflicts of interest associated with in-house publishing. By not depending on its own journals, the university ensures its scientific production bypasses academic endogamy and undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to competitive validation reinforces its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.173, the institution displays a rate of redundant output well below the national average of -0.003. This prudent profile suggests that its publication processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. The low incidence of massive bibliographic overlap between publications indicates a strong culture that discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific record.
