| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.009 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.456 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.958 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.331 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.903 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.165 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.893 | 0.027 |
Delaware State University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.512 that indicates performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels across the majority of indicators, particularly in areas such as Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and Rate of Institutional Self-Citation. These results point to a solid culture of quality control and ethical research conduct. The primary areas for strategic attention are the moderate risks identified in the Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership and the Rate of Redundant Output, which suggest opportunities to enhance the sustainability of its scientific impact and the substantiality of its publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Social Sciences. As the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, a direct alignment is not possible; however, the identified moderate risks could challenge any mission centered on research excellence, as they touch upon the structural autonomy of its impact and the integrity of its scientific record. Overall, the university is in an excellent position, and by proactively addressing these two moderate-risk areas, it can further solidify its standing as a leader in responsible and high-quality research.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low risk in this area, with a Z-score of -1.009, which is notably better than the national average of -0.514. This result demonstrates a clear and consistent approach to institutional credit attribution that surpasses the already low-risk standard in the United States. The absence of signals related to this indicator suggests that the university's affiliations are transparent and not prone to strategic manipulation or “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a strong foundation of administrative integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution maintains a very low rate of retractions, performing more strongly than the national average of -0.126. This alignment with a low-risk national context, and indeed an outperformance of it, points to highly effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. Such a low rate suggests that the institution's integrity culture is robust, successfully preventing systemic failures or recurring malpractice and ensuring the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.958 is significantly below the national average of -0.566, indicating a very low and healthy level of institutional self-citation. This demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and integration within the global scientific community. The data suggests the institution avoids the risk of creating 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices, confirming that its academic influence is earned through broad recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is -0.331, compared to the national score of -0.415. While both scores reflect a very low-risk environment, the institution shows a minimal, residual signal that is slightly more pronounced than the national baseline. This suggests that while due diligence in selecting publication venues is overwhelmingly strong, isolated instances may exist. It represents an opportunity to refine information literacy and ensure all research is channeled through reputable media that meet international ethical and quality standards.
Delaware State University shows remarkable resilience against the national trend of authorship proliferation, with a Z-score of -0.903 (low risk) in contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.594. This indicates that the institution's internal governance and academic culture effectively filter out the systemic pressures that can lead to author list inflation. The university’s practices appear to successfully promote individual accountability and transparency, distinguishing legitimate large-scale collaboration from honorary or unjustified authorship.
The institution records a Z-score of 0.165 in this medium-risk indicator, demonstrating more effective management compared to the national average of 0.284. Although a gap exists, suggesting some reliance on external partners for impact, the institution moderates this risk better than its national peers. This points to a more balanced approach where scientific prestige is not purely dependent on exogenous factors. It reflects a positive trajectory towards building structural, internally-led capacity for high-impact research, which is crucial for long-term sustainability.
With an extremely low Z-score of -1.413, the institution stands out positively against the national average of -0.275. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors is a strong testament to a research environment that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. It indicates that the university effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, fostering a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is paramount.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.220, with both reflecting a state of maximum scientific security in this domain. This total alignment demonstrates a shared commitment to using external, independent peer review as the primary channel for scientific dissemination. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution eliminates potential conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated competitively on a global stage.
The institution's Z-score of 0.893 indicates a higher exposure to redundant publications compared to the national average of 0.027, placing it in the medium-risk category. This suggests that the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity may be more prevalent at the institution than in its environment. This pattern warrants attention, as 'salami slicing' can distort the scientific evidence base and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. A review of authorship and publication guidelines could help reinforce the value of substantive, integral research contributions.
