| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.986 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.911 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.893 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.021 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.027 |
Lewis & Clark College demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.539 that places it well below the global average. This performance is characterized by a consistent and robust adherence to best practices, particularly in areas where national trends indicate vulnerability, such as hyper-authorship, impact dependency, and redundant publishing. The institution's strengths are most pronounced in its very low rates of hyperprolific authors and redundant output, signaling a culture that prioritizes quality and substance over volume. The only area warranting minor attention is a slightly elevated, though still low, rate of retracted output compared to the national baseline. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the college maintains a notable academic presence in Social Sciences. This robust integrity framework directly supports the college's mission to "seek knowledge for its own sake and to prepare for civic leadership." By fostering an environment free from distorting publication pressures, the institution ensures that its scholarly community can pursue inquiry with discipline and transparency, reinforcing its commitment to handing down the authentic "tools and discoveries" of liberal arts to successive generations. We recommend leveraging this outstanding integrity profile as a key differentiator that validates the college's promise of academic excellence and responsible scholarship.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.986, significantly lower than the national average of -0.514. This result indicates a very healthy and transparent pattern of academic collaboration. The college's extremely low rate demonstrates a clear alignment with national standards for ethical affiliation, showing no signs of the strategic "affiliation shopping" that can be used to artificially inflate institutional credit. This low-profile consistency suggests that its collaborative networks are built on genuine scientific partnerships rather than metric-driven incentives, reflecting a secure and straightforward approach to scholarly attribution.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.126, though both fall within a low-risk range. This minor divergence suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While some retractions can reflect responsible error correction, a rate that edges above the national baseline, however slightly, could indicate that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may not be as robust as they could be. This signal serves as a proactive opportunity to reinforce methodological rigor and supervisory oversight to prevent any potential for systemic issues from escalating.
The institution's Z-score of -0.911 is substantially lower than the national average of -0.566, highlighting an exemplary level of external validation for its research. This demonstrates a strong outward-looking research culture, free from the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-citation. The data confirms that the institution's academic influence is earned through broad recognition by the global scientific community, rather than being inflated by endogamous or insular citation practices, ensuring its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny.
The institution achieves a Z-score of -0.545, positioning it even more favorably than the already very low national average of -0.415. This near-total operational silence in a high-risk area signifies an outstanding commitment to publishing in reputable venues. It reflects a highly effective due diligence process among its researchers in selecting dissemination channels, successfully avoiding the reputational and resource risks associated with predatory or low-quality journals. This performance indicates a strong culture of information literacy and a commitment to channeling scientific work through media that meet international ethical and quality standards.
With a Z-score of -0.893, the institution displays a low rate of hyper-authorship, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, suggesting that internal governance and academic norms effectively mitigate the systemic national trend toward author list inflation. By maintaining clear and accountable authorship practices, the college successfully distinguishes its legitimate collaborations from "honorary" or political authorship, thereby preserving the transparency and integrity of individual contributions to its scholarly output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.021 indicates a very low and healthy gap, standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.284. This result is a strong indicator of institutional resilience and scientific autonomy. It suggests that the college's research prestige is built upon a solid foundation of internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on the impact generated by external partners. This sustainable model ensures that its excellence metrics are a true reflection of its own scholarly contributions, avoiding the risks of an exogenous and dependent reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.275. This signals a robust academic culture that prioritizes depth and quality over sheer publication volume. The absence of hyperprolific authors indicates that the institution is not susceptible to practices like coercive authorship or data fragmentation, which can arise from an overemphasis on metrics. This strong, low-profile consistency with national integrity standards confirms a healthy balance between productivity and the meaningful intellectual contribution expected of a high-integrity scholarly environment.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is almost perfectly aligned with the very low national average of -0.220. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a clear commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the college effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, reinforcing the credibility and global reach of its research.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a very low risk of redundant publications, which is particularly notable when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.027. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the college does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. The data strongly suggests that its researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting work into "minimal publishable units." This commitment to substance over volume protects the integrity of the scientific record and reflects a highly responsible research culture.
