| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.102 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.061 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.664 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.007 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.785 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.368 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.078 | 0.027 |
The University of Tampa demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.353 that indicates a performance generally aligned with or exceeding national standards. The institution's primary strengths are evident in its exceptionally low rates of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, showcasing strong governance and a commitment to external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk level for output in discontinued journals and a noticeable gap in the impact of institution-led research, which stand in contrast to the national profile. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Earth and Planetary Sciences, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Business, Management and Accounting. These identified risks, particularly in publication channel selection, could undermine the university's mission to provide "high-quality educational experiences" and foster "intellectual growth." To fully embody its commitment to producing "responsible citizens," the institution should focus on mitigating these specific vulnerabilities. By addressing these targeted areas, the University of Tampa can further solidify its foundation of scientific integrity, ensuring its operational practices fully support its core mission of academic excellence.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.102 compared to the national average of -0.514, the University of Tampa exhibits an exceptionally low-risk profile in this area. This result demonstrates a healthy consistency with the low-risk environment of the United States, indicating that the institution's affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed. The complete absence of signals related to strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to inflate institutional credit reinforces a culture of clear and legitimate collaborative frameworks.
The institution's Z-score of -0.061 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.126, although both fall within the low-risk category. This minor divergence suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a rate that edges above the national benchmark, however slightly, could indicate that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more often than is typical for the environment. This signal merits a proactive review to ensure that potential issues of methodological rigor or recurring malpractice are addressed before they escalate.
The University of Tampa shows a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.664, which is notably lower than the national average of -0.566. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. Such a result reflects a healthy integration with the global scientific community and a reliance on external scrutiny for validation. The university effectively avoids the risks of scientific isolation or creating 'echo chambers,' ensuring its academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than endogamous internal dynamics.
A significant monitoring alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 0.007, which indicates a medium risk, in stark contrast to the country's very low-risk average of -0.415. This unusual divergence from the national standard requires an immediate review of its causes. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and indicating an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience, with a Z-score of -0.785 placing it in the low-risk category, while the national average of 0.594 indicates a medium-risk environment. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. The data indicates that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary, large-scale collaboration and practices of author list inflation, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.
With a Z-score of 0.368, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk than the national average of 0.284, though both are in the medium-risk category. This wider gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is more dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This pattern signals a potential sustainability risk, prompting reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships. Strengthening the impact of internally-led research is key to ensuring long-term, structural excellence.
The University of Tampa's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national low-risk average of -0.275. This result shows a strong alignment with a culture of integrity and a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the institution is not exposed to dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, which can arise from extreme individual publication volumes.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -0.220. This complete absence of risk signals demonstrates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility.
Displaying strong institutional resilience, the university's Z-score of -0.078 indicates a low risk, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.027. This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms effectively curb practices of data fragmentation. The low score indicates that research is structured to prioritize significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby avoiding the distortion of scientific evidence that 'salami slicing' can cause.
