Drake University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Drake University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.528. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of redundant output (salami slicing), hyperprolific authorship, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes quality and ethical rigor, often outperforming national benchmarks. This strong foundation is evident across its key research areas as identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Social Sciences. The main area for strategic review is the medium-risk gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research, which is more pronounced than the national average. This profile aligns well with the University's mission to foster "responsible global citizenship," as a high-integrity environment is fundamental to this goal. However, the noted reliance on external partners for impact presents an opportunity to more fully realize the "professional accomplishments" component of its mission by cultivating greater internal research leadership. It is recommended that the University leverage its solid ethical foundation to develop targeted strategies that enhance endogenous research capacity and solidify its role as a leader in scholarly contribution.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.335 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.514. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard. The data suggests that the institution maintains a clear and transparent affiliation policy. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the absence of disproportionate rates here confirms that the University effectively avoids strategic practices like “affiliation shopping,” which can be used to artificially inflate institutional credit and distort research analytics.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.099, the institution's rate of retractions is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.126. This low-risk level does not signal any systemic issues. Retractions are complex events, and a rate within the expected range suggests that the institution's academic supervision and quality control mechanisms are functioning responsibly. Rather than indicating recurring malpractice, this figure points to a healthy scientific process where unintentional errors are corrected transparently, reinforcing a culture of integrity.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.287 is in the low-risk category but is slightly higher than the national average of -0.566, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this minor elevation compared to its peers suggests a need to ensure that the institution does not develop scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated primarily through internal dynamics. Continued observation is recommended to prevent this trend from escalating into a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence is oversized by internal validation rather than broader community recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.545, which is even lower than the very low-risk national average of -0.415. This represents a state of total operational silence in this risk area, highlighting an exemplary practice. This figure demonstrates exceptional due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels for its research. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects its scientific production from reputational risks and ensures its resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a low-risk Z-score of -0.722, the institution shows significant resilience against the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.594). This demonstrates that the institution acts as an effective filter against systemic national practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this controlled rate suggests that the University successfully mitigates the risk of author list inflation outside of these contexts. This indicates that internal governance promotes transparency and individual accountability, distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.450 places it in the medium-risk category, showing a higher exposure to this vulnerability compared to the national average of 0.284. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This metric warns that its high-impact performance could be more exogenous than structural. It invites a critical strategic reflection on whether excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from advantageous positioning in partnerships, highlighting a need to foster more endogenous research leadership to ensure long-term scientific autonomy and growth.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting sharply with the low-risk national average of -0.275. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an environment that does not foster extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, this very low rate indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This reinforces a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of productivity metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a total absence of risk signals, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.220. This indicates a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The institution's minimal use of such channels demonstrates that it avoids academic endogamy and does not use internal publications as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs, ensuring its scientific production is validated against global competitive standards.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signals a very low risk, demonstrating a remarkable preventive isolation from a practice that is a medium-risk vulnerability at the national level (Z-score: 0.027). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The extremely low rate of massive bibliographic overlap suggests a strong institutional policy against 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal publishable units. This practice prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of publication counts, thereby strengthening the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.