University of South Dakota

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of South Dakota demonstrates a generally positive scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.107. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining a very low rate of output in institutional journals and multiple affiliations, alongside a prudent management of hyperprolific authorship and redundant publications, often outperforming national averages. These areas underscore a solid foundation of research governance. However, this profile is critically undermined by a significant alert in the Rate of Retracted Output, which is severely discrepant from the national standard and requires immediate attention. A secondary strategic vulnerability lies in the notable gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research, suggesting a dependency on external collaborations for prestige. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Environmental Science, Mathematics, and Computer Science. To fulfill its mission as the state's "flagship" public liberal arts university, it is imperative to address the integrity risks that directly contradict the principles of excellence and public trust. By tackling the root causes of its high retraction rate, the University can safeguard its reputation and ensure its research leadership is both impactful and unimpeachable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.993, which is even lower than the national average of -0.514. This result indicates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses the already low standard observed nationally. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate confirms a clear and unambiguous institutional identity in its scientific output, effectively avoiding any perception of strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 1.000, the institution shows a severe discrepancy compared to the national average of -0.126. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions can sometimes result from honest error correction, but a rate this far above the norm is a critical alert. It suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically, pointing to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This finding warrants an immediate qualitative verification by management to identify and address potential recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.570 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.566, demonstrating statistical normality. This alignment indicates that the university's risk level in this area is as expected for its context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's normal rate confirms that it is not operating in a scientific "echo chamber." This balance suggests that the institution's academic influence is appropriately validated by the global research community, avoiding any risk of endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.286 marks a slight divergence from the very low-risk national environment, where the average is -0.415. This indicates that the university shows minor signals of risk activity that are largely absent in the rest of the country. While the overall risk is low, this deviation constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication channels. It suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to prevent scientific work from being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby avoiding potential reputational harm.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.407 is below the national average of 0.594, though both fall within the medium-risk category. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common nationally. In fields outside of "Big Science," high author counts can dilute individual accountability. The university's relative control over this indicator suggests a more robust process for distinguishing between necessary massive collaborations and questionable "honorary" authorship practices.

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

With a Z-score of 1.555, the institution shows high exposure to this risk, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.284. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This reliance on collaborations where the institution may not exercise intellectual leadership invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities or a dependency on its role in larger, externally-led projects.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.606, which is considerably lower than the national standard of -0.275. This indicates that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than its national peers. By effectively curbing extreme individual publication volumes, the institution avoids the associated risks of coercive authorship or prioritizing quantity over quality. This result points to a healthy balance that ensures authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contribution, safeguarding the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has an average of -0.220. This total alignment in a very low-risk area is a clear strength. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to global validation standards prevents academic endogamy and reinforces the credibility and visibility of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.366, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.027. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider environment. A low rate of redundant output indicates that the university actively discourages "salami slicing"—the practice of fragmenting studies to inflate publication counts. This focus on presenting coherent, significant new knowledge over sheer volume strengthens the quality and reliability of its scientific contributions.