| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.055 | -0.073 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.484 | -0.152 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.754 | -0.387 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.457 | -0.445 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.595 | 0.135 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.612 | 0.306 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.439 | -0.151 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.227 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.003 |
The University of Prince Edward Island demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.398 indicating performance that is significantly more secure than the national average. The institution exhibits exceptional control over its research practices, with very low risk signals in critical areas such as retracted output, redundant publications, and the use of discontinued or institutional journals. These strengths are complemented by a prudent management of self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. However, two areas warrant strategic attention: a moderate rate of multiple affiliations and a noticeable gap between the impact of its total output and that of research where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's research excellence is particularly prominent in thematic areas such as Veterinary (ranked 13th in Canada), Earth and Planetary Sciences (29th), and Medicine (33rd). While the institution’s strong integrity culture aligns well with its mission to foster "critical and creative thinking" and serve society, the identified risks could subtly undermine these values by creating a perception of dependency on external partners for impact and a focus on credit accumulation. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, the University can further solidify its foundation of scholarly excellence and ensure its contributions are both impactful and structurally sustainable.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.055, which moderately deviates from the Canadian national average of -0.073. This indicates that 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, a rate that is notably higher than the national standard can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence suggests a need to review institutional policies to ensure that co-authorship and affiliation practices transparently reflect genuine and substantial collaborative contributions, maintaining a clear line between partnership and credit optimization.
With a Z-score of -0.484, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, a figure that is consistent with and even improves upon Canada's already low-risk national average of -0.152. This absence of significant risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for research integrity. Such a result strongly suggests that the University's quality control mechanisms and supervisory processes prior to publication are highly effective. It points to a responsible and mature integrity culture where unintentional errors are likely corrected before they escalate, safeguarding the reliability of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.754, indicating a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.387. This demonstrates that the University manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the Canadian standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value confirms that the institution is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' Instead, its work is being actively engaged with and validated by the broader external research community, which is a strong indicator of genuine academic influence and successful integration into global scientific discourse.
The University's Z-score of -0.457 is in almost perfect synchrony with the Canadian average of -0.445. This total alignment reflects an environment of maximum scientific security regarding the choice of publication venues. It demonstrates that the institution's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice mitigates severe reputational risks and confirms a high level of information literacy, preventing the misallocation of research efforts to 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
With a Z-score of -0.595, the institution shows significant resilience against the risk of hyper-authorship, particularly when compared to the national Z-score of 0.135, which signals a systemic tendency in this area. This suggests that the University's internal control mechanisms and academic culture act as an effective filter against national practices of author list inflation. By maintaining authorship norms that are more conservative than its environment, the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution's Z-score of 0.612 indicates a high exposure to this risk, surpassing the national average of 0.306. This suggests that the University is more prone than its peers to a dependency on external collaborations for its citation impact. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is lower, signals a potential sustainability risk. This metric suggests that a significant portion of the University's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than stemming from its own structural capacity. It invites a strategic reflection on how to foster and elevate the impact of research where the institution exercises full intellectual leadership.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.439, reflecting a more prudent and controlled profile than the Canadian national average of -0.151. This indicates that the University manages its research environment with more rigor than the national standard, effectively discouraging extreme individual publication volumes. This low incidence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy institutional focus on the quality and substance of research over sheer quantity. It mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's practices are in integrity synchrony with the national average of -0.227. This complete alignment with a secure national environment shows a negligible reliance on in-house journals for dissemination. This commitment to publishing in external, independent venues avoids potential conflicts of interest where the institution would act as both judge and party. It ensures that its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation and peer review, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is exceptionally low, demonstrating a near-total absence of this risk and aligning with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.003). This result indicates that the University's research culture strongly discourages the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple 'minimal publishable units.' By avoiding 'salami slicing,' the institution's researchers contribute more significant and coherent knowledge to the scientific record, upholding the principles of research integrity and respecting the academic review system.
