| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.580 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.993 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.422 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.011 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
5.107 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.597 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.130 | 0.027 |
A.T. Still University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.248 reflecting a balance of commendable strengths and significant strategic vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates robust internal governance in key areas, showing exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, which points to a culture of external validation and healthy integration into the global scientific community. However, this is contrasted by critical risks, most notably a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. This suggests a strong dependency on external partners for prestige. Further concerns arise from a higher-than-average publication rate in discontinued journals and elevated signals related to hyperprolific authors and redundant output. These risks could undermine the core tenets of its mission, which champions "scholarship" and "whole person healthcare." While the university holds strong thematic rankings in areas like Dentistry, Biochemistry, Medicine, and Social Sciences according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the identified integrity risks, particularly the reliance on external leadership for impact, challenge the long-term sustainability of this excellence. To fully align its practices with its mission, the university is advised to leverage its foundational strengths to address these vulnerabilities, focusing on fostering internal research leadership and enhancing due diligence in publication strategies.
The institution's Z-score of 0.580 for this indicator, compared to the national average of -0.514, suggests a moderate deviation from the national standard. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with multiple affiliations than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that co-authorship and affiliation practices are driven by genuine scientific collaboration rather than metric optimization.
With a Z-score of -0.296, which is below the national average of -0.126, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in managing post-publication corrections. This suggests that its quality control and supervision processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a lower-than-average rate indicates that the mechanisms for ensuring methodological soundness and ethical compliance prior to publication appear to be functioning effectively, safeguarding the institution's scientific record.
The university demonstrates an exemplary commitment to external validation, with a Z-score of -1.993 that is significantly lower than the national average of -0.566. This absence of risk signals not only aligns with the national standard but surpasses it, reflecting a low-profile consistency. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It is a strong indicator that the university's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
A critical monitoring alert is triggered by the institution's Z-score of 0.422, a figure that is highly unusual when contrasted with the national average of -0.415. This disparity requires an immediate review of its causes. A high proportion of publications in journals that cease to meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a significant alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific work into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
The institution shows notable resilience in its authorship practices, with a Z-score of -0.011 that stands in contrast to the higher national average of 0.594. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks related to authorship inflation that are more prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the university's controlled rate indicates a healthy approach that preserves individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship.
This indicator presents the most significant strategic risk, as the institution's Z-score of 5.107 dramatically amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.284). This exceptionally wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
The university displays a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 0.597 that is considerably higher than the country's average of -0.275. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, rates exceeding the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution can signal imbalances between quantity and quality. This alert points to potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, warranting a review to ensure that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
A state of integrity synchrony is observed in this area, with the institution's Z-score of -0.268 showing total alignment with the national average of -0.220. This reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research output.
The institution shows a high exposure to risks associated with data fragmentation, with a Z-score of 0.130 that is higher than the national average of 0.027. Although this reflects a systemic pattern, the university appears more prone to showing these alert signals than its environment average. This high value warns of the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such 'salami slicing' can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
