| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.192 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.155 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.251 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.425 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.927 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
5.334 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.320 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.156 | 0.027 |
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University-Prescott campus demonstrates a generally solid scientific integrity profile, characterized by exceptional performance in preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring publication channel quality. With an overall risk score of 0.099, the institution shows significant strengths, particularly in its very low rates of institutional self-citation, multiple affiliations, and output in discontinued or institutional journals. These strengths are foundational to its mission of leadership in aerospace and aviation education. The university's academic prowess is further evidenced by its strong national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings thematic areas, including Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Engineering. However, this profile is contrasted by significant alerts in the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output and the Gap between total and led-research impact, alongside a high exposure to redundant publications. These specific vulnerabilities directly challenge the mission's core tenets of "world leader" and "leadership roles," as they suggest a potential dependency on external collaborators for impact and a dilution of individual accountability. Addressing these strategic risks is crucial to ensure that the institution's operational practices fully reflect its stated commitment to excellence and its ambition to cultivate genuine scientific leadership.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.192, positioning it in a very low-risk category and well below the national average of -0.514. This result indicates a commendable absence of risk signals in an already low-risk national environment. The institution's performance suggests that its affiliations are managed with clarity and transparency. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's extremely low rate provides strong assurance against strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution's rate of retracted output is statistically normal and in close alignment with the United States average of -0.126. This parity suggests that the institution's risk level is as expected for its context and size, reflecting a responsible and standard approach to scientific correction. A low rate such as this does not indicate systemic failures in pre-publication quality control; rather, it is consistent with the diligent, good-faith process of correcting unintentional errors, which is a sign of a healthy and functioning research ecosystem.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.251 in institutional self-citation, significantly better than the country's already low-risk average of -0.566. This excellent result signals a strong outward-looking research culture that is well-integrated into the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's minimal rate effectively rules out any concerns about scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This performance confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny, not inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.425 is in perfect alignment with the national average of -0.415, reflecting a shared environment of maximum security against this risk. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution exercises excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. A negligible presence in discontinued journals is a critical indicator of robust information literacy and a commitment to quality, effectively protecting the institution from the reputational damage and wasted resources associated with 'predatory' or substandard publishing practices.
A significant alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 2.927, which is critically high and accentuates the moderate vulnerability observed at the national level (0.594). This score suggests the institution is amplifying a systemic risk, pointing to a high prevalence of publications with extensive author lists. While such patterns can be legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, this pronounced signal warrants an urgent internal review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic practices like author list inflation. Such practices can dilute individual accountability and transparency, and it is crucial to verify that authorship is being awarded based on meaningful contributions.
The institution presents a critical Z-score of 5.334, a figure that dramatically amplifies the moderate risk seen in the national context (0.284). This extremely wide positive gap is a major strategic concern, signaling that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be highly dependent on external partners. A high value suggests that its most impactful research is often conducted in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. This poses a sustainability risk, inviting deep reflection on whether its high-level excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a strategic positioning that relies on the leadership of others.
The institution's Z-score of -0.320 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.275. This indicates a healthy and balanced approach to academic productivity, with no evidence of the extreme individual publication volumes that can signal integrity risks. The data suggests that there are no significant imbalances between quantity and quality, and the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in complete synchrony with the national average of -0.220, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This alignment demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility for its research. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates any potential conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its credibility and reach within the international academic community.
The institution's Z-score of 1.156 indicates a medium-risk level, but its value reveals a high exposure compared to the national average of 0.027, which is also in the medium tier. This suggests the institution is more prone to this risk factor than its peers. This elevated score serves as an alert for the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study might be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base, and a review is recommended to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
