| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.856 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.841 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.321 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.195 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.334 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.897 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.302 | 0.720 |
The Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science demonstrates a robust overall profile of scientific integrity, reflected in a favorable global risk score of -0.609. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining research quality and independence, effectively isolating itself from significant national risk trends such as high rates of retracted output and publication in discontinued journals. This indicates a strong internal governance and a culture that prioritizes methodological rigor. Key areas for strategic attention include a high rate of institutional self-citation, which exceeds the national average, and a moderate level of redundant publication. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, its strong integrity profile aligns with the universal academic values of excellence and ethical conduct. This is particularly relevant given its national leadership in thematic areas identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings, including Energy, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Medicine, and Chemistry. Addressing the identified vulnerabilities in citation and publication practices will be crucial to ensure that these reputational risks do not undermine the credibility of its excellent research and its commitment to generating socially responsible knowledge. The institution is in a formidable position, and a proactive focus on these specific areas will further cement its status as a benchmark for responsible research in the region.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.856, while the national average is -0.927. This result indicates a slight divergence from the national context, where signals of this type of risk are virtually non-existent. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, their appearance, even at a low level, in an environment where they are otherwise absent, suggests a dynamic worth observing. The institution's profile, though secure, shows a minor signal of activity that warrants monitoring to ensure all affiliations are strategically and ethically justified, rather than attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit.
The institution's Z-score of -0.841 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.279. This demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the medium-level risk dynamics observed in its national environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the country's average suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are exceptionally effective. This performance acts as a firewall, protecting the institution from systemic vulnerabilities in integrity culture and reinforcing its commitment to methodological rigor and responsible research conduct.
With a Z-score of 1.321, the institution's rate is notably higher than the national average of 0.520, despite both falling within a medium-risk context. This indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the institution is more prone to these alert signals than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.545, a figure that highlights its effective disconnection from a national risk trend, where the average score is 1.099. This performance indicates that the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, often linked to 'predatory' practices. The institution's very low rate demonstrates a robust commitment to publishing in high-quality, reputable venues, thereby safeguarding its resources and international reputation from the severe risks associated with low-quality academic media.
The institution's Z-score of -1.195 is even lower than the country's already low-risk average of -1.024. This result shows a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals at the institutional level is in harmony with the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a very low score outside these contexts points to excellent practices in authorship transparency. This demonstrates a culture that values clear individual accountability and avoids the dilution of responsibility that can arise from 'honorary' or inflated authorship lists.
With a Z-score of -1.334, the institution significantly outperforms the national average of -0.292. This excellent result reflects a low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals that aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. A low score in this indicator is highly desirable, as it signifies that the impact of research led by the institution's own authors is strong and not dependent on external partners. This suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, stemming from a real internal capacity for intellectual leadership rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
The institution's Z-score of -0.897 is markedly better than the national average of -0.067. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the institution's absence of risk signals is fully aligned with a secure national environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. The institution's very low score indicates a healthy research culture that is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.250. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, where the institution's practices are in total harmony with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution has a Z-score of 0.302, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.720, although both are classified as medium risk. This indicates a capacity for differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common or pronounced at the national level. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can suggest 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. While the institution is not entirely free of this risk, its better-than-average performance suggests that its internal controls are more effective at encouraging the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.
