DePaul University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

DePaul University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall risk score of 0.032, indicating very low exposure to questionable research practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and resilience, particularly in its management of hyper-authorship and its reliance on internal research leadership, where it outperforms national trends. Further areas of excellence include a near-total absence of publications in discontinued journals and a very low rate of multiple affiliations, reflecting strong governance and due diligence. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Psychology, Business, Management and Accounting, Mathematics, and Social Sciences. However, this solid foundation is compromised by two critical vulnerabilities: a 'significant' risk level in the Rate of Retracted Output and a 'medium' but highly exposed Rate of Redundant Output. These issues directly challenge the university's mission to serve the "common good" and uphold "social justice," as they can erode public trust and misrepresent scientific contributions. To fully align its commendable research output with its core Vincentian values, it is recommended that the university conduct a focused review of its pre-publication quality control and authorship guidelines to mitigate these specific risks and safeguard its academic reputation.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -1.014, DePaul University demonstrates a rate of multiple affiliations significantly lower than the national average of -0.514. This result reflects a clear and consistent institutional policy on author affiliations. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's very low rate indicates an operational environment free from the risk signals associated with strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, aligning with a national context that already shows low risk in this area.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.056 in retracted publications, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.126. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. While some retractions stem from honest error correction, a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further reputational damage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.504, a value indicating low risk but slightly higher than the national average of -0.566. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this minor elevation serves as a signal to ensure that research remains externally validated and does not drift towards an 'echo chamber' dynamic. Proactive monitoring is advisable to prevent any potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might become oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

DePaul University shows a Z-score of -0.497, positioning it favorably even against the United States' very low national average of -0.415. This near-total operational silence in a risk-free environment demonstrates exceptional due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice effectively insulates the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing, showcasing a strong commitment to channeling its scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.813 for hyper-authored output is exceptionally low, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. By maintaining low rates of hyper-authorship, the university successfully avoids the potential for author list inflation and ensures that individual accountability and transparency are preserved, distinguishing its practices from the broader national trend.

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

With a Z-score of -0.754, the university shows a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership, a stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.284. This is a sign of institutional resilience and strong internal capacity. The data suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not dependent on external partners for impact. This reflects a healthy research ecosystem where excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -0.134, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.275. This indicates an incipient vulnerability, as the institution shows minor signals that warrant review. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a gentle alert to monitor for potential imbalances between quantity and quality and to ensure that authorship is not assigned without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university's rate of publication in its own journals is almost perfectly aligned with the very low national average of -0.220. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared commitment to external, independent peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 1.184, a figure indicating high exposure when compared to the national average of 0.027, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This pronounced difference suggests the university is more prone to this practice than its peers. A high value alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing volume over the contribution of significant new knowledge.