| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.897 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.070 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.329 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.365 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.433 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.112 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.793 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.114 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.029 | 0.027 |
Temple University demonstrates a robust foundation of scientific integrity, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.220. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in areas of strategic importance, with very low risk signals in Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths are complemented by a prudent management of author productivity. Areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national norm in the Rate of Retracted Output and a notable dependency on external collaborations for impact, as shown by the Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly pronounced in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Psychology, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Business, Management and Accounting. These areas of excellence directly support the institutional mission to create new knowledge through "discovery" and provide an "excellent" education. However, the identified risks, particularly around retractions and impact dependency, could challenge this mission by potentially undermining the perceived quality and sustainability of its research endeavors. To fully align its operational integrity with its aspirational goals, it is recommended that the university focuses on developing targeted strategies to mitigate these moderate-risk indicators, thereby reinforcing its commitment to excellence and responsible scholarship.
The institution's Z-score of -0.897 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.514. This demonstrates a clear alignment with national standards for research collaboration, showing an even more conservative profile than its peers. The absence of risk signals indicates that affiliations are managed transparently and legitimately. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the university's very low rate suggests that its collaborative patterns are a healthy result of genuine researcher mobility and partnerships, free from any indication of strategic “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 0.070, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.126, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate notably higher than the national standard suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This value serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.329, far below the already low national average of -0.566. This result provides strong evidence of the university's integration into the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's minimal rate demonstrates that its research is validated through broad external scrutiny rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This performance effectively mitigates any risk of endogamous impact inflation, confirming that the institution's academic influence is driven by global recognition, not internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.365 is very low and closely tracks the national average of -0.415. In an environment where risk is already minimal, the university's score represents a negligible signal. This indicates a very low institutional exposure to predatory or low-quality publishing practices. While any presence in discontinued journals warrants attention, this minimal value confirms a strong culture of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively protecting the university from the reputational risks associated with channeling work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of 0.433 is below the national average of 0.594, both of which fall within a moderate risk context. This indicates a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that is common across the country. The lower score suggests effective institutional oversight in distinguishing between necessary massive collaborations, typical in 'Big Science,' and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. This proactive stance helps preserve individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
With a Z-score of 1.112, the institution shows a significantly higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.284. This wide positive gap suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige is more dependent on external partners than is typical for the nation. While collaboration is vital, this value signals a sustainability risk, indicating that its high-impact metrics may result more from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own structural research capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on fostering and promoting internally-led, high-impact research.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.793, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.275. This demonstrates that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. The low incidence of hyperprolific authors indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, successfully mitigating the risks of coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution. This focus on substance over volume reinforces the integrity of the institution's scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.114 is extremely low, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.220. In a context of almost total operational silence on this indicator, this value represents only residual noise. It confirms that the university overwhelmingly prioritizes external, independent peer review over in-house publication channels. This practice avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from an over-reliance on institutional journals, ensuring its scientific production is validated competitively and achieves global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.029 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.027. This strong alignment indicates that the university's risk level for redundant publications reflects a systemic pattern shared across the national research landscape. The data suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to inflate productivity is not an institutional anomaly but rather a reflection of broader pressures within the scientific community. This highlights a shared challenge in prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over publication volume.
