| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.114 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.090 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.845 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.455 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.139 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.727 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.027 |
Ithaca College demonstrates an exceptionally strong profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.470 that indicates robust governance and a culture of ethical research. The institution's performance is characterized by a widespread absence of risk signals across most indicators, particularly in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Redundant Output, and Rate of Multiple Affiliations, where its practices are significantly more rigorous than the national average. This foundation of integrity aligns powerfully with the institution's mission to "educate, engage, and empower," as it ensures that the theory, practice, and performance it champions are built on a bedrock of transparency and quality. The College's recognized strengths in Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences, as noted in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, are further bolstered by this commitment to responsible conduct. The primary area for strategic attention is the moderate risk associated with the impact gap in collaborative research, which suggests an opportunity to further empower internal researchers to take on leadership roles. By leveraging its outstanding integrity framework, Ithaca College is well-positioned to enhance its research sovereignty and amplify its role as a leader in ethical and impactful scholarship.
With a Z-score of -1.114, significantly lower than the national average of -0.514, Ithaca College exhibits an exemplary and clear approach to author affiliations. This performance indicates that the institution operates with a high degree of transparency, successfully avoiding the risk signals that can sometimes appear at the national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the College's very low rate suggests its policies effectively prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," ensuring that academic contributions are credited with precision and integrity.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.090, which is statistically normal and in close alignment with the United States average of -0.126. This result does not suggest any systemic issues; rather, it reflects the expected level of scientific self-correction within a research ecosystem of its size. Retractions are complex events, and a rate consistent with the national context indicates that the College's supervisory and quality control mechanisms are functioning appropriately, allowing for the honest correction of unintentional errors without pointing to recurring malpractice or a compromised integrity culture.
Ithaca College's Z-score of -0.845 is markedly lower than the national average of -0.566, demonstrating a strong orientation toward external validation and integration within the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate confirms that it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' This performance is a positive sign that the College's academic influence is driven by broad community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, effectively mitigating any risk of endogamous impact.
The institution shows excellent alignment with its national environment, with a Z-score of -0.455 that is nearly identical to the country's average of -0.415. This integrity synchrony signifies a shared commitment to publishing in reputable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence, but Ithaca College's performance indicates that its researchers exercise appropriate care in selecting dissemination channels, thereby avoiding reputational risks and the waste of resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
Ithaca College demonstrates institutional resilience against national trends, with a low Z-score of -0.139 in contrast to the moderate-risk national average of 0.594. This suggests that the College's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a low score outside these contexts is a strong indicator of healthy authorship practices. The institution appears to successfully prevent author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.727 in this indicator, which is higher than the national average of 0.284, signaling a point of high exposure and a need for strategic review. This value suggests that the College's overall scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. While partnering is essential, a wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, where excellence metrics could be perceived as resulting from strategic positioning rather than from fully developed internal capacity. This invites reflection on how to empower home researchers to lead high-impact projects, ensuring that prestige is both structural and sovereign.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 compared to the national average of -0.275, Ithaca College shows a profound commitment to quality over sheer volume of publications. This result indicates a complete absence of the risk signals associated with hyperprolificacy. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, but the College's profile suggests a healthy balance. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, reinforcing an environment where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over metric inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the United States average of -0.220, demonstrating a shared standard of prioritizing external, independent peer review. This synchrony indicates that the College, like its national peers, avoids over-reliance on its own publication channels. This practice is crucial for mitigating conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where in-house journals might be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts. By favoring external validation, the institution ensures its research competes on a global stage and maintains high standards of credibility.
Ithaca College achieves a state of preventive isolation in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.186 that signals a complete absence of risk, in stark contrast to the moderate-risk national average of 0.027. This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The College's performance strongly suggests that its researchers are committed to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting data into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
