University of Notre Dame

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Notre Dame demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with a favorable overall risk score of -0.268 that indicates performance superior to the global average. The institution exhibits significant strengths in its publication practices, showing very low risk in the use of discontinued or institutional journals. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate tendency towards institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and redundant publications. These patterns, while not critical, warrant review to ensure they do not inadvertently create academic echo chambers or prioritize publication volume over substantive contribution. This operational profile supports the University's outstanding academic reputation, reflected in its top-tier national rankings (SCImago Institutions Rankings) in fields such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (46th in the US), Business, Management and Accounting (48th), Arts and Humanities (49th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (50th). To fully align with its mission of pursuing "truth for its own sake" through "free inquiry and open discussion," it is vital that these identified risk signals are addressed. By proactively refining its authorship and citation policies, the University can ensure its operational practices perfectly mirror its commitment to academic excellence and ethical leadership, reinforcing its role as a premier Catholic research university.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Notre Dame shows a Z-score of -0.602 in this indicator, a value lower than the national average of -0.514. This prudent profile suggests the institution manages its affiliation practices with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the University's controlled rate demonstrates a clear process that effectively avoids any perception of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby reinforcing the transparency of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution's rate of retracted output is notably lower than the national average of -0.126. This reflects a prudent and effective approach to quality control, indicating that the University's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a lower-than-average rate suggests that systemic failures in quality control are successfully being prevented, safeguarding the institution's reputation and affirming its commitment to a culture of integrity and methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score of 0.016 for institutional self-citation marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.566, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, this higher value warns of a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution's work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warrants a review to ensure that the University's academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than being oversized by internal citation dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.504, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.415. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, demonstrating an exceptional level of due diligence in the selection of publication venues. This absence of risk signals, even below the national baseline, confirms that the University's researchers are effectively avoiding channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from reputational damage and ensuring research resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.848, significantly above the national average of 0.594, the institution shows high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting it is more prone to generating publications with extensive author lists than its environment average. While this is legitimate in 'Big Science' disciplines, a high rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a signal for the institution to review its authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' or political authorship attributions that could compromise research integrity.

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

The University of Notre Dame presents a Z-score of -0.192 in this indicator, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.284, which sits in the medium-risk category. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the University's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk observed across the country. A negative score indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is robust and not overly dependent on external partners. This reflects a high degree of internal capacity and intellectual leadership, confirming that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable rather than reliant on exogenous collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -0.379, a more favorable value than the national average of -0.275. This prudent profile suggests that the University manages its research environment with more rigor than the national standard in this regard. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's lower-than-average score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.206, the University's rate of publication in its own journals is in close alignment with the national average of -0.220. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, where the institution's practices are perfectly aligned with a national environment of maximum scientific security. By not over-relying on in-house journals, the University avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University's Z-score of 0.135 for redundant output is notably higher than the national average of 0.027, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This pattern, often called 'salami slicing,' can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system. The elevated score serves as an alert to review publication strategies and promote research that prioritizes significant new knowledge over sheer volume.