East Tennessee State University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

East Tennessee State University presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.082 indicating performance that is slightly better than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Redundant Output, Hyperprolific Authors, Institutional Self-Citation, and Output in Institutional Journals, showcasing a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity and external validation over internal promotion. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two areas requiring strategic attention: a moderate risk in the Rate of Retracted Output and, most notably, a concerning Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which deviates significantly from the national standard. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are most prominent in Arts and Humanities, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. The identified integrity risks, particularly those related to publication channels and post-publication corrections, directly challenge the institution's stated mission to uphold "high standards," "excellence," and "integrity." To fully align its operational reality with its core values, the university should leverage its numerous areas of integrity excellence to develop targeted policies and training aimed at mitigating these specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its commitment to trust and intellectual achievement is reflected across all facets of its research enterprise.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a very low-risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -0.937, which is notably lower than the country's already low-risk average of -0.514. This result demonstrates a clear and transparent approach to academic affiliations. The absence of risk signals suggests that the institution's policies and researcher practices effectively prevent any perception of "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, aligning with a national context of responsible collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score at 0.709 compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.126. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to risk factors leading to retractions than its peers. While some retractions signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors, a rate significantly higher than the average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This finding suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than expected, indicating a potential for recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -1.048, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, well below the already low national average of -0.566. This is a strong indicator of scientific openness and integration with the global research community. The data provides confidence that the institution avoids concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, ensuring that its academic influence is driven by broad recognition rather than being oversized by internal citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

This indicator presents a monitoring alert, as the institution's Z-score of 0.414 marks an unusual risk level when contrasted with the country's very low-risk average of -0.415. This discrepancy requires a review of its causes. A high proportion of publications in such venues constitutes a critical alert 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 prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.675 compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic risks related to authorship. The data indicates that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its publications.

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

With a low-risk Z-score of -0.060, the institution shows strong resilience against impact dependency, especially when compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.284. This favorable gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly reliant on external partners but is built upon a solid foundation of internal capacity. This result indicates that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal intellectual leadership, rather than primarily from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead the research.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship and a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national average of -0.275. This is a clear sign of a healthy research environment that prioritizes substance over sheer volume. The data points to a strong balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

In this area, the institution exhibits total operational silence, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -0.220. This demonstrates an exemplary commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and maximizing its potential for global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends in this indicator. Its very low-risk Z-score of -0.518 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk dynamic observed at the national level (0.027), indicating that it does not replicate the risk dynamics of 'salami slicing' seen in its environment. This suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, thereby protecting the integrity of scientific evidence.