| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.173 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.155 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.497 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.386 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.023 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.281 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.247 | 0.027 |
Illinois State University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a favorable overall risk score of -0.487. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low rates of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in both discontinued and institutional journals, showcasing a commitment to transparency and high-quality dissemination channels. This strong governance is further evidenced by its resilience against national trends in hyper-authorship and impact dependency. The university's academic prowess is highlighted by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. This performance aligns well with its mission to uphold the "highest academic standards." However, an elevated rate of redundant output presents a potential misalignment with this mission, suggesting a risk of prioritizing publication volume over substantive scholarship. To fully realize its vision of serving the community with productive and supportive scholarship, it is recommended that the university reviews its publication incentive structures to ensure they consistently reward research quality and impact over quantity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.173 is notably lower than the national average of -0.514. This demonstrates a highly controlled and transparent approach to academic collaboration. The complete absence of risk signals in this area, even when compared to a low-risk national environment, confirms that the university's practices are far from strategic "affiliation shopping" and reflect a culture of clear and legitimate partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution's rate of retracted publications is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.126. This alignment suggests that its quality control and post-publication correction mechanisms are functioning as expected for its context. The data does not indicate any systemic failure in pre-publication review; rather, it reflects a responsible handling of scientific error correction that is consistent with peer institutions across the country.
The institution's Z-score of -0.497 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.566, signaling an area for observation. While the rate remains low, this minor elevation could represent an incipient vulnerability. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, but it is crucial to monitor this trend to prevent the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny, potentially leading to an overestimation of academic influence.
The institution's Z-score of -0.386 is in perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.415, indicating a shared environment of maximum security in this regard. This alignment demonstrates excellent due diligence in the selection of publication venues. By avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university effectively mitigates reputational risks and ensures its research resources are invested in credible and impactful outlets.
The institution displays significant institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -1.023 in stark contrast to the national average of 0.594. While the country shows a moderate tendency towards hyper-authorship, the university's control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate this systemic risk. This suggests a strong internal culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency.
With a Z-score of -0.281, the institution again demonstrates resilience against a national trend where the average is 0.284. The university maintains a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, suggesting its scientific prestige is built on strong internal capacity rather than being dependent on external partners. This indicates that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine intellectual leadership, ensuring long-term sustainability and academic autonomy.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.275. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors provides strong evidence of a healthy research environment. It suggests that the institutional culture prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume, effectively avoiding the risks associated with coercive authorship or the dilution of meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even more favorable than the national average of -0.220. This indicates a firm commitment to using external, independent peer review for its scholarly output. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated by the global scientific community and maximizing its visibility and impact.
This indicator presents an area of concern, as the institution's Z-score of 0.247 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.027. This suggests a greater exposure to the practice of fragmenting research into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. Such 'salami slicing' can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system. This finding warrants an internal review to ensure that institutional incentives are aligned with the goal of producing significant, coherent bodies of work rather than simply maximizing publication counts.
