Cleveland State University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Cleveland State University demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.491 that indicates robust internal governance and a culture of ethical research. The institution consistently outperforms national averages, particularly in mitigating systemic risks prevalent in the wider academic environment, such as hyper-authorship, dependency on external impact, and redundant publications. This low-risk profile is a significant asset, directly supporting the university's mission to "Create Knowledge" and "Shape Our World" by ensuring its scholarly contributions are reliable, transparent, and ethically sound. The university's academic strengths, evidenced by its high national rankings in key areas like Mathematics, Engineering, Computer Science, and Business, Management and Accounting, are built upon this solid foundation of integrity. By maintaining these high standards, Cleveland State University not only avoids reputational damage but also reinforces the values of excellence and social responsibility central to its identity. It is recommended that the institution leverage this outstanding integrity performance as a strategic differentiator to attract talent and funding, while continuing to monitor the few areas of minor divergence to maintain its exemplary standing.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a very low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -0.887, which is even more controlled than the low-risk national average of -0.514. This result demonstrates a clear and consistent approach to academic collaboration, where the absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, the university's data shows no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting transparent and well-defined collaborative practices.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.137, the institution's rate of retracted output is statistically normal when compared to the national average of -0.126. This alignment suggests that the university's risk level is as expected for its context and that its quality control mechanisms are functioning appropriately. Retractions can be complex events, and this low rate indicates that any instances are more likely the result of responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors rather than a systemic failure in the institution's integrity culture or methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university maintains a Z-score of -0.987 in institutional self-citation, a very low value that is significantly below the national average of -0.566. This demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and integration within the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms that it avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result strongly suggests that the university's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a slight divergence from the national trend regarding publication in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of -0.271 compared to the country's very low-risk score of -0.415. This indicates that while the national environment is almost entirely free of this practice, the university exhibits a minor, low-level signal of risk. A high proportion of output in such journals can be a critical alert, and this small signal suggests a need to reinforce due diligence in selecting dissemination channels to avoid any potential reputational risk or the channeling of research into media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

Cleveland State University demonstrates notable institutional resilience in managing authorship practices, with a low Z-score of -1.018, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of author list inflation seen elsewhere in the country. The data suggests a culture that values individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution displays strong scientific autonomy, with a low Z-score of -0.161 in its impact gap, which is significantly healthier than the medium-risk national average of 0.284. This result reflects institutional resilience, suggesting that the university's prestige is not overly dependent on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, but the university's profile indicates that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring its scientific standing is both structural and sustainable.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the university shows a very low incidence of hyperprolific authors, performing even better than the low-risk national average of -0.275. This absence of risk signals aligns with a national standard of control and points to a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, and this very low indicator suggests the institution effectively discourages practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with the country's very low-risk environment (Z-score of -0.220). This indicates a shared commitment to avoiding potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. By not relying on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby avoiding academic endogamy, enhancing global visibility, and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution exhibits a state of preventive isolation from national trends in redundant publication, with a very low Z-score of -0.620, while the country shows a medium-risk average of 0.027. This strong performance indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The data confirms an institutional culture that discourages 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal units to inflate productivity—and instead prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.