North Carolina A&T State University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

North Carolina A&T State University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, characterized by a low overall risk score of 0.113. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in several key areas, including a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, minimal dependence on external leadership for impact, and negligible use of institutional journals, indicating a strong culture of external validation and authentic research capacity. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a critically high Rate of Retracted Output and a medium-to-high Rate of Redundant Output. These challenges directly conflict with the university's mission to "advance knowledge" and achieve "excellence," as they suggest potential gaps in pre-publication quality control and a focus on publication volume over substantive discovery. The university's recognized strengths, particularly in thematic areas such as Veterinary (ranked 67th in the US), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (110th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (136th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provide a powerful platform for leadership. By leveraging this strong academic standing to implement targeted improvements in research oversight and publication ethics, North Carolina A&T can fortify its integrity framework, ensuring its contributions to science are not only innovative but also unimpeachably sound.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.025 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.514, indicating an exceptionally low incidence of this practice. This result demonstrates a clear and conservative approach to authorship, reflecting a low-profile consistency that aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution’s very low rate signals an environment free from strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, ensuring that scholarly contributions are attributed with clarity and precision.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.488, the institution displays a significant risk level that represents a severe discrepancy from the low-risk national average of -0.126. This atypical activity is a critical alert that requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Beyond isolated incidents, this value points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that necessitates immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.613 is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.566. This alignment indicates that the level of institutional self-citation is precisely what is expected for its context and size. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. The observed rate confirms a healthy balance, suggesting the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' and that its academic influence is appropriately validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.177, while in the low-risk category, marks a slight divergence from the very low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.415). This indicates that the university shows minor signals of risk activity that are largely absent elsewhere in the country. A high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert, but this low value simply suggests a need for enhanced vigilance. It points to a potential opportunity to strengthen information literacy among researchers to ensure due diligence in selecting high-quality dissemination channels and avoid any reputational risk associated with low-quality or 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a low-risk Z-score of -0.580, the institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience, effectively mitigating the systemic risks suggested by the country's medium-risk average of 0.594. This indicates that internal governance and authorship policies are successful in preventing the author list inflation seen elsewhere. By maintaining this control, the institution ensures that authorship reflects genuine contribution, preserving individual accountability and transparency and distinguishing its practices from environments where 'honorary' or political authorship may be more common.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.867, a very low-risk value that signals a state of preventive isolation from the national trend (Z-score 0.284). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where there is a greater tendency for impact to be dependent on external collaborators. A very low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity. This is a strong indicator of sustainability, showing that its excellence metrics result from genuine intellectual leadership rather than strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.052 is in the very low-risk category, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.275. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an environment where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low rate in this area points to a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively discouraging practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a very low Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security (country Z-score -0.220). Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and limit global visibility. The university's negligible rate of publication in its own journals confirms a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and avoiding any risk of academic endogamy.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.794 places it in the medium-risk category, reflecting a systemic pattern also seen at the national level (Z-score 0.027). However, the institution's score is notably higher than the country average, indicating a high exposure and a greater proneness to showing alert signals. This suggests a tendency toward 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice can distort the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, signaling a need to reinforce a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over publication volume.