Old Dominion University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Old Dominion University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.312. This performance indicates that the institution's research practices are overwhelmingly sound and well-governed, with minimal exposure to the most critical integrity risks. Strengths are particularly evident in the near-total absence of signals related to hyperprolific authorship, the use of institutional journals, and problematic affiliations. Furthermore, the university shows remarkable resilience, maintaining low-risk levels in areas like hyper-authorship and impact dependency, where national trends suggest greater vulnerability. The only significant point for strategic attention is a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Redundant Output, which exceeds the national average. This operational excellence provides a solid foundation for the university's thematic strengths, as evidenced by its high national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Business, Management and Accounting, Social Sciences, Computer Science, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. This strong integrity culture directly supports the institutional mission to provide "rigorous academic programs" and enrich society. Addressing the observed pattern of redundant publication will further align practices with this core value of rigor, ensuring that the university's contributions are not only numerous but also substantively impactful. A targeted review of authorship guidelines and publication strategies is recommended to mitigate this single vulnerability and solidify the university's position as a leader in responsible and high-quality research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of -0.866 compared to the national average of -0.514, Old Dominion University exhibits an exceptionally low-risk profile in this area. This performance suggests a clear and consistent approach to academic affiliations that surpasses the already high national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's data shows no signs of the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a commendable level of transparency in how its researchers represent their institutional ties.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.193 is slightly more favorable than the national average of -0.126, indicating a prudent and effective approach to research quality control. Retractions can be complex, but a low rate such as this suggests that the university's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are functioning with greater rigor than the national standard. This performance points to a healthy integrity culture where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before publication, minimizing the need for post-publication corrections and reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.254, which, while indicating a low overall risk, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.566. This subtle deviation warrants observation as a potential incipient vulnerability. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this result suggests the institution should ensure its research is consistently validated by the broader scientific community to avoid the risk of creating 'echo chambers.' Monitoring this indicator will help confirm that the university's academic influence is driven by global recognition rather than being disproportionately shaped by internal citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With an institutional Z-score of -0.407, which is nearly identical to the national average of -0.415, the university demonstrates perfect alignment with a secure national environment. This integrity synchrony signifies that its researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for their work. The data confirms a robust process for avoiding predatory or low-quality publications, thereby protecting the institution from reputational risk and ensuring that its scientific output appears in credible and enduring venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

Old Dominion University shows significant institutional resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.489, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This indicates that the university's internal governance and authorship policies act as an effective filter against the systemic national trend toward author list inflation. By maintaining this low-risk profile, the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable honorary authorship practices, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research.

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

The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.050, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.284. This result suggests that the university effectively mitigates the national tendency for research impact to be dependent on external collaborations. The small gap indicates that the university's scientific prestige is built upon strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not merely on a strategic positioning in partnerships where it does not lead. This points to a sustainable and self-reliant research ecosystem that generates its own high-impact work.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -1.055 is exceptionally low, signaling a near-total absence of this risk and performing significantly better than the national average of -0.275. This low-profile consistency reflects a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. The data suggests that authorship is reserved for those with meaningful intellectual contributions, effectively avoiding imbalances that can lead to coercive authorship or a dilution of the integrity of the scientific record. This result is a strong positive indicator of a well-regulated and responsible research environment.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.220. This state of 'total operational silence' indicates a strong commitment to seeking external, independent peer review for its research. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively eliminates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through competitive, global channels and maximizing its international visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.720 places it at a medium-risk level, a figure that indicates high exposure as it is significantly above the national average of 0.027. This is an area that warrants immediate attention. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single body of research may be fragmented into multiple 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system, suggesting a need to review publication guidelines to ensure that output prioritizes significant new knowledge over volume.