| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.195 | -0.073 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.202 | -0.152 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.675 | -0.387 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.414 | -0.445 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.709 | 0.135 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.861 | 0.306 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.632 | -0.151 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.227 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.756 | -0.003 |
Mount Royal College demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.453 that indicates robust governance and responsible research practices. The institution consistently outperforms the national averages for Canada across all indicators, showcasing a culture that effectively mitigates potential vulnerabilities. Key strengths are evident in its capacity for independent, high-impact research (Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership) and its resilience against national trends in hyper-authorship, confirming a focus on substantive contributions. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this commitment to quality underpins its notable national standing in key thematic areas, including Arts and Humanities (ranked 25th in Canada), Business, Management and Accounting (39th), and Energy (39th). This outstanding integrity performance directly embodies the core values of its mission—"integrity, compassion and respect"—and is fundamental to "building strong, trusting relationships" with the global academic community and the public. By preventing the risks that could tarnish its reputation, the institution actively fulfills its commitment to "protecting people and property." We recommend that Mount Royal College strategically leverage this exemplary integrity profile as a hallmark of its brand, using it to attract talent, foster high-value collaborations, and solidify its position as a leader in responsible and ethical research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.195 is notably lower than the national average of -0.073. This indicates a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author affiliations, surpassing the already low-risk national standard. This careful oversight ensures that institutional credit is claimed with transparency and accuracy. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's controlled rate demonstrates a commitment to avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.202, the institution shows a lower incidence of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.152. This suggests that its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national norm. An extremely low rate of retractions is a positive signal of a healthy integrity culture, indicating that pre-publication processes are effective in ensuring methodological soundness and preventing the kinds of errors or malpractice that could later compromise the scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.675, significantly below the Canadian average of -0.387. This demonstrates a clear commitment to external validation and engagement with the global scientific community, far exceeding the national standard. Such a low rate of institutional self-citation effectively dismisses any risk of operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' It confirms that the institution's academic influence is built upon widespread recognition from external peers rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.414 is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.445, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security. This synchronous, very low-risk profile indicates that the institution exercises excellent due diligence in selecting publication venues. This practice is critical for safeguarding research from being associated with 'predatory' or low-quality channels, thereby protecting institutional resources and reputation from severe ethical and quality risks.
The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.709, in stark contrast to the moderate-risk national average of 0.135. This demonstrates remarkable institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal policies and academic culture act as an effective filter against the systemic risk of authorship inflation present in the wider environment. By ensuring author lists remain transparent and accountable, the institution successfully distinguishes its legitimate large-scale collaborations from practices that could dilute individual responsibility.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.861, the institution shows a complete disconnection from the moderate-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.306). This is a significant strength, indicating that the impact generated by research under its own intellectual leadership is robust and self-sufficient. This result confirms that the institution's scientific prestige is built on genuine internal capacity and is not dependent on external partners, signaling a sustainable and structurally sound model for academic excellence.
The institution's Z-score of -0.632 is considerably lower than the national average of -0.151, highlighting a more prudent management of research productivity. This suggests an institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and substance of scientific contributions over sheer volume. By maintaining a low rate of hyperprolific authors, the institution effectively mitigates risks associated with an overemphasis on metrics, such as coercive authorship or imbalances between quantity and quality, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's practices are in total synchrony with the country's very low-risk average of -0.227. This alignment demonstrates a strong, shared commitment to external and independent peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution eliminates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.756 places it in the very low-risk category, significantly outperforming the low-risk national average of -0.003. This near-total absence of risk signals demonstrates an exemplary commitment to publishing substantial and coherent research. This practice directly counters the risk of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to inflate publication counts. It shows a clear focus on contributing significant new knowledge to the field rather than overburdening the scientific record with redundant output.
