Creighton University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

With an overall risk score of 0.187, Creighton University demonstrates a robust foundation of scientific integrity, characterized by strong controls in key areas of research practice. The institution exhibits particular strength in maintaining very low rates of publication in its own journals and effectively managing redundant output, institutional self-citation, and retractions, aligning well with national benchmarks. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and a notable gap in impact between collaborative and institution-led research. These vulnerabilities, while moderate, could challenge the university's mission to pursue "truth in all its forms" and achieve "excellence." The institution's strong academic standing, particularly in thematic areas such as Dentistry, Medicine, and Physics and Astronomy as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid platform for addressing these integrity risks. By proactively refining authorship policies and enhancing due diligence in publication venue selection, Creighton University can further fortify its research enterprise, ensuring its practices fully embody its commitment to societal betterment and the promotion of justice.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.020, while the national average is -0.514. Although both scores fall within a low-risk range, the university's rate is slightly higher than the national standard, suggesting an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation signals a nascent trend. Proactive monitoring is recommended to ensure this pattern does not evolve into strategic "affiliation shopping" aimed at inflating institutional credit and remains aligned with legitimate collaborative practices.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.090 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.126, indicating a risk profile that is in perfect alignment with its context. This demonstrates statistical normality, where quality control and post-publication supervision mechanisms function at the expected national standard. Retractions are complex events, but the current low rate suggests that any occurrences are more likely to be isolated instances of responsible error correction rather than indicators of a systemic failure in the institution's integrity culture or pre-publication review processes.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.531 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.566, reflecting a healthy and expected level of research continuity. A certain degree of self-citation is natural for established research lines. The current score confirms that the institution is not operating within a scientific "echo chamber" and that its academic influence is appropriately balanced between internal validation and external scrutiny from the global community, thereby avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a medium-risk Z-score of 0.290, which stands in stark contrast to the very low-risk national average of -0.415. This discrepancy constitutes a monitoring alert, as this practice is unusual for the national standard. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical warning regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 1.154, the institution demonstrates a higher exposure to hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of 0.594, though both are in the medium-risk category. This indicates a greater institutional propensity for practices that can lead to author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" contexts, a high Z-score outside these areas can signal the dilution of individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a signal to review authorship policies to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and "honorary" or political authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.578 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.284, revealing a high exposure to dependency on external collaboration for impact. This pronounced gap suggests a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be more reliant on partners than on internally generated research. A high value in this indicator invites strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own core capacity and intellectual leadership or from its strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not hold the primary leadership role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's medium-risk Z-score of 0.836 represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.275. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to factors that encourage hyperprolificacy among its researchers. As extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, this indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality. It points to risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assignment without real participation, highlighting a need to ensure productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.220. This signifies a total operational silence in this risk area, confirming a complete absence of academic endogamy. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which mitigates conflicts of interest and maximizes global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential "fast tracks" for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.173, demonstrating institutional resilience by effectively mitigating a risk that is present at a medium level nationally (Z-score of 0.027). This suggests the presence of robust internal control mechanisms that discourage data fragmentation. A low rate of redundant output indicates that the university successfully prevents the practice of "salami slicing"—dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—thereby strengthening the scientific evidence it produces and prioritizing significant new knowledge over volume.