| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.123 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.295 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.808 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.435 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.269 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.176 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.644 | 0.027 |
North Carolina Central University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.229. The institution exhibits exceptional strength in maintaining very low-risk levels for institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant output, often performing significantly better than the national average. These strengths are foundational to its mission of preparing global leaders through research. The University's academic excellence is further evidenced by its strong SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Medicine, which align directly with its stated focus on advancing biomedical and health sciences. However, moderate risk signals in Retracted Output and Hyper-Authored Output present a potential misalignment with its mission's core values of excellence and community transformation. Addressing these specific vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that the institution's operational practices fully support its scientific ambitions and social responsibilities. A proactive focus on enhancing pre-publication quality control will solidify its reputation and leverage its clear thematic strengths for greater global impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.123, while the national average is -0.514. Although both the University and the country operate at a low-risk level, the institution's rate is slightly higher, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight elevation compared to the national standard suggests a need to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 0.295, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.126. This discrepancy, where the University registers a medium risk level in an otherwise low-risk national context, suggests a greater sensitivity to factors leading to retractions. A rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This finding indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than at peer institutions, pointing to a possible lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent recurring malpractice.
The institution's Z-score of -0.808 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.566. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses the already low national standard. This excellent result indicates that the University's research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-referencing. Such a low rate confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.435, which is slightly better than the national average of -0.415. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, with an absence of signals that is even more complete than the national baseline. This performance indicates that the institution exercises exceptional due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals and protecting its research from severe reputational risks.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.269, compared to a national average of 0.594. While both the University and the country show a medium level of risk, the institution's score is considerably lower, pointing to differentiated management of this issue. This suggests the institution is more effectively moderating authorship practices that are common nationally. By maintaining a lower rate, the University appears better able to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.176, the institution's impact gap is smaller than the national average of 0.284. This reflects a differentiated management approach, as the institution moderates a risk that is more pronounced at the national level. A smaller gap suggests that the University's scientific prestige is less dependent on external partners and more reflective of its own structural capacity. This indicates a healthier balance where institutional excellence is increasingly driven by research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership, mitigating the sustainability risks associated with an over-reliance on collaborative impact.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.413, a figure that signals a near-total absence of this risk and stands in stark contrast to the national average of -0.275. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an institutional culture that effectively discourages practices that prioritize volume over substance. The data suggests a strong alignment with responsible research conduct, avoiding the potential for coercive authorship or other dynamics where metrics are pursued at the expense of the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.220. This indicates a perfect integrity synchrony, with the University's practices fully aligned with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. The very low rate for both demonstrates a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, ensuring that research undergoes independent external peer review and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' that bypass standard competitive validation.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.644, while the national average is 0.027. This stark difference highlights a case of preventive isolation, where the University's very low-risk profile shows it does not replicate the medium-risk dynamics observed across the country. This exceptional result indicates that the institution has successfully insulated itself from the national trend of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' It reflects a strong institutional commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics by dividing research into minimal publishable units.
