| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.119 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.535 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.276 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.245 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.881 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.046 | 0.027 |
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.483 indicating performance that is significantly more secure than the national average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Multiple Affiliations, alongside effective mitigation of Retracted Output and Redundant Output. These results point to a culture of transparency and a focus on quality over quantity. Areas for strategic attention, though not critical, include a moderate gap between the impact of its total output versus its leader-led output, and a similar risk level in hyper-authorship, which reflect systemic patterns in the national context. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's key thematic strengths are concentrated in Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Social Sciences. This strong integrity foundation directly supports the institutional mission "to assist the people of central and southern Illinois" by ensuring that its education, patient care, and research are "effective, efficient, equitable and enjoyable." A low-risk research environment is fundamental to producing reliable and effective healthcare solutions. To fully align with its mission, the institution is encouraged to continue fostering internal research leadership, thereby ensuring its scientific prestige is as sustainable and structurally sound as its ethical framework.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.119, a very low-risk value that is well below the national average of -0.514. This excellent result demonstrates a clear and transparent affiliation policy that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms the absence of strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a commendable focus on substantive partnerships.
With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, consistent with and even better than the low-risk national average of -0.126. This indicates that the pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning effectively. A high rate of retractions can signal systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity, but the institution's minimal score suggests that its research culture is robust, successfully preventing recurring malpractice and upholding the reliability of its scientific output.
The institution's Z-score of -1.535 is exceptionally low, positioning it far more favorably than the national average of -0.566. This result is a powerful indicator of scientific openness and external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's minimal rate demonstrates that it actively avoids the risks of creating 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This ensures its academic influence is genuinely built on recognition from the global scientific community, not on internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.276 signifies a low-risk level, yet it represents a slight divergence from the very low-risk national benchmark of -0.415. This suggests that while the issue is not widespread, there are isolated instances of publication in channels that may not meet international quality standards. This finding serves as a constructive alert for enhancing due diligence in the selection of publication venues, thereby protecting the institution from reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices and ensuring research resources are channeled effectively.
The institution's Z-score of 0.245 places it in the medium-risk category, a level that is notably more controlled than the national average of 0.594. This indicates that while the institution engages in the kind of large-scale collaborations common in its environment, it exercises more effective management over authorship practices than its peers. This moderation is key to distinguishing between necessary 'Big Science' collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship, thereby helping to preserve individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
With a Z-score of 0.881, the institution shows a medium-risk signal that is considerably more pronounced than the national average of 0.284. This high exposure indicates a significant gap where the impact of its overall scientific output is substantially greater than the impact of research for which it provides direct intellectual leadership. This pattern signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be highly dependent on external partners. This invites a strategic reflection on fostering and promoting internal research capacity to ensure that its excellence is structural and self-sufficient.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, a result that is significantly stronger than the already low-risk national average of -0.275. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors is a clear sign of a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. It effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation, reinforcing the integrity of the scientific record and ensuring a sustainable and credible research environment.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in total alignment with the national average of -0.220, with both scores falling into the very low-risk tier. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent, external peer review rather than relying on in-house journals, the institution guarantees its research is validated against global standards, which is essential for maximizing visibility and competitive credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.046, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile that stands in positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.027. This shows strong institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk that is more common systemically. By discouraging 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications—the institution promotes the advancement of significant, coherent knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby strengthening the scientific literature.
