Coastal Carolina University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Coastal Carolina University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, characterized by an overall low-risk score of -0.500. This performance reflects a strong alignment with its mission to uphold the "highest standards of integrity and accountability." The institution's primary strengths are evident in its exceptionally low rates of Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating rigorous internal governance and a commitment to quality over quantity. Analysis of SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the university's competitive positioning in several key thematic areas, particularly in Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Business, Management and Accounting. While the overall integrity landscape is positive, the medium-risk signal for Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) presents a potential conflict with the mission's pursuit of "excellence," as it suggests a vulnerability to academic pressures that prioritize publication volume. To fully realize its strategic vision, the university is encouraged to maintain its excellent control mechanisms while proactively addressing this specific area to ensure that all research contributions are both significant and impactful.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -1.217), a figure that is significantly below the already low national average for the United States (Z-score: -0.514). This demonstrates a clear and conservative affiliation policy that aligns with the national standard but with even greater control. This absence of risk signals confirms that the university's practices are far from any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," reflecting a straightforward and transparent approach to academic collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.165, the institution's rate of retracted output is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average (Z-score: -0.126). This indicates that the university's quality control and post-publication supervision mechanisms are functioning as expected for an institution of its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this level does not suggest any systemic failure in pre-publication review or a vulnerability in the institutional integrity culture, but rather a responsible handling of scientific correction consistent with its peers.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university maintains a prudent profile in institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.584, which is slightly more rigorous than the national standard (Z-score: -0.566). This indicates a healthy level of engagement with the global scientific community, effectively mitigating the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' By ensuring its work is validated through sufficient external scrutiny, the institution avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than broader community recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A slight divergence is noted in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, where the institution shows a low but detectable signal (Z-score: -0.289) in contrast to a national environment where this risk is virtually absent (Z-score: -0.415). While not a critical alert, this finding suggests a potential vulnerability in the due diligence processes for selecting dissemination channels. It points to an opportunity to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure institutional resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices that could carry reputational risk.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates notable resilience against a national trend, maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.896) while the country shows a medium-risk level (Z-score: 0.594). This suggests that the university's internal governance acts as an effective filter against practices like author list inflation. This control ensures that authorship reflects genuine contribution, preserving individual accountability and distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from potentially dilutive 'honorary' authorship.

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

Coastal Carolina University displays strong scientific autonomy, with a low Z-score of -0.645, indicating a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. This performance is particularly resilient when compared to the national context, which shows a medium-level gap (Z-score: 0.284). This result suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is instead built on structural, internal capacity. It confirms that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine intellectual leadership rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's profile shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413, a rate significantly lower than the national standard (Z-score: -0.275). This low-profile consistency indicates a research culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume. This effectively mitigates risks associated with extreme productivity, such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' and points to a healthy and sustainable balance in academic output.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

There is a total operational silence regarding output in institutional journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the minimal national average (Z-score: -0.220). This complete absence of risk signals demonstrates an unequivocal commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding its own journals, the university eliminates any potential conflicts of interest or academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and maximizing its global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' presents a medium-risk signal (Z-score: 0.061) that mirrors a systemic pattern observed across the United States (Z-score: 0.027). This alignment suggests that the university is subject to the same national-level academic pressures that may encourage the fragmentation of coherent studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity metrics. This practice poses a risk to the integrity of the scientific record by over-representing findings and over-burdening the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.