Western New England University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Western New England University presents a balanced but complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.121 indicating performance near the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and a robust integrity culture in several key areas, particularly in its very low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, complemented by prudent management of Multiple Affiliations and Retracted Output. These positive indicators are further reinforced by the University's thematic strengths in areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Psychology, and Social Sciences, as identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this solid foundation is critically undermined by a significant risk in the Rate of Redundant Output and a medium risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the University's mission to foster "excellence in... research" and develop "leaders and problem-solvers," as they suggest a potential prioritization of publication volume over substantive contribution. To fully align its practices with its stated mission, the University should leverage its evident strengths in research governance to implement targeted interventions that address these specific high-risk areas, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its research genuinely contributes to knowledge.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.502, which is slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -0.514. This result suggests that the University's processes for managing and reporting researcher affiliations are well-controlled, operating with more diligence than the national average. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this low-risk signal indicates that the institution is not exposed to strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a healthy and transparent collaborative environment.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a more favorable position compared to the national average of -0.126. This indicates a prudent and effective approach to quality control. Retractions can be complex, but a rate lower than the national standard suggests that the institution's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are functioning robustly. This low signal is a positive indicator of a healthy integrity culture, suggesting that systemic failures in methodological rigor or recurring malpractice are not a concern at the institutional level.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University shows an exceptionally low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.162, far below the country's low-risk score of -0.566. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a national environment that also maintains good practices. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate strongly indicates that the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It demonstrates that the University's academic influence is validated by the broader global community through external scrutiny, rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A monitoring alert is triggered for this indicator, as the institution's Z-score of 0.313 (medium risk) represents a significant and unusual deviation from the national standard of -0.415 (very low risk). This discrepancy requires a review of its causes. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the University's scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates notable resilience, with a Z-score of -1.111 (low risk) in a national context that shows a medium risk (0.594). This indicates that the University's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in 'Big Science,' this low score suggests the institution successfully prevents author list inflation outside of these contexts. This serves as a positive signal that practices like 'honorary' authorship are well-controlled, preserving individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a Z-score of 0.781, which is more pronounced than the national average of 0.284. This indicates the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. A wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low—signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that the University's scientific prestige may be dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than being built on its own structural capacity. This invites reflection on strategies to strengthen internal research leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution's very low-risk profile is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.275). The complete absence of risk signals in this area is a strong positive indicator. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This result suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, pointing away from risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and reinforcing a culture that values the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University demonstrates integrity synchrony, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is in total alignment with the national environment's very low-risk score of -0.220. This indicates a strong commitment to using external, independent peer review for its research outputs. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its scientific production, ensuring it meets international standards.

Rate of Redundant Output

This indicator represents a critical finding, as the institution's Z-score of 3.789 (significant risk) drastically accentuates a vulnerability that is only moderately present in the national system (Z-score 0.027). This severe discrepancy requires urgent attention. A high value in this area is a strong alert for the practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.