Touro University, New York

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Touro University, New York, presents a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.098 indicating general alignment with national standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining academic independence, evidenced by exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals. These areas of excellence are complemented by a prudent management of retractions and a resilient posture against hyper-authorship. Key areas for strategic focus include a high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows notable thematic presence in areas such as Dentistry, Medicine, and Psychology. These identified risks, particularly concerning publication channels and impact dependency, could challenge the institution's mission to foster "personal and professional ethics" and build a "responsive and responsible society." To fully honor its commitment to integrity and excellence, it is recommended that the university develops targeted informational and strategic initiatives to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its strong ethical foundation.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.293) signals an incipient vulnerability, as it is slightly higher than the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.514), even though both are within a low-risk range. This subtle divergence warrants proactive review. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rising trend can sometimes signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Monitoring this indicator is advisable to ensure that all declared affiliations remain substantive and transparent, upholding the integrity of institutional representation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.212, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.126). This favorable position suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are effective. Retractions are complex events, and this lower-than-average rate indicates a healthy scientific culture where unintentional errors are likely identified and corrected before they enter the scientific record, thereby strengthening the institution's reputation for reliable scholarship.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution shows exemplary performance in institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.393 that signifies a near-total absence of this risk and aligns well with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.566). A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines; however, this exceptionally low value confirms that the institution actively avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This practice demonstrates a strong reliance on external validation and ensures that the institution's academic influence is genuinely recognized by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A significant monitoring alert is raised by the institution's publication rate in discontinued journals, where its Z-score of 0.354 stands in stark contrast to the very low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.415). This unusual level requires an immediate review of its causes. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with its low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.620) effectively mitigating the systemic risks more prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.594). This suggests that internal governance and control mechanisms are functioning as a successful filter. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, the institution’s controlled rate outside these contexts indicates a healthy culture of authorship that successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby preserving transparency and individual accountability.

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

The institution exhibits high exposure to risks related to impact dependency, with a Z-score of 1.311 that is considerably more pronounced than the national average (Z-score: 0.284). This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is low—signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from advantageous positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

An incipient vulnerability is detected in the rate of hyperprolific authors, where the institution's Z-score of -0.148 is slightly elevated compared to the national baseline (Z-score: -0.275). Although the overall risk remains low, this signal warrants review before it escalates. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to latent risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

In the domain of institutional publishing, the university demonstrates total operational silence, with a Z-score of -0.268 indicating a complete absence of risk signals and outperforming the already secure national average (Z-score: -0.220). This practice is a hallmark of integrity, as it avoids the conflict of interest that arises when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. By forgoing internal channels, the institution ensures its scientific production is subject to independent, external peer review, reinforcing its commitment to global visibility and standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's rate of redundant output (Z-score: 0.006) reflects a systemic pattern, as it is in close alignment with the national average (Z-score: 0.027). This suggests the observed medium risk level is influenced by shared academic practices or norms at a national level. This indicator alerts to the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior known as 'salami slicing.' While the institution is not an outlier, the presence of this risk underscores the need to reinforce policies that prioritize the dissemination of significant new knowledge over the pursuit of publication volume.