| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.388 | 1.800 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.418 | 0.437 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.643 | 1.325 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.258 | -0.082 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
4.277 | 5.104 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.346 | 3.814 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
3.074 | 1.980 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.102 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.091 | 0.930 |
Ilia State University demonstrates a strong overall performance with a scientific integrity score of 0.961, reflecting a robust foundation with notable areas of excellence and specific, targeted vulnerabilities. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exemplary governance regarding publishing channels, evidenced by a very low rate of output in its own journals and a prudent avoidance of discontinued publications. These practices showcase a commitment to external validation and quality. However, significant risks are concentrated in authorship patterns, particularly a critical rate of hyperprolific authors and a high incidence of hyper-authored publications, which require immediate strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's leadership is undisputed within Georgia, holding the #1 national rank in key areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Engineering, and Social Sciences. This dominant position aligns with its mission to "generate, disseminate and apply knowledge to advance science." Yet, the identified authorship risks could undermine this mission by creating a perception that publication volume is prioritized over the integrity and substantive contribution of the knowledge being generated. To fully realize its vision, the university should leverage its governance strengths to implement stricter authorship policies, ensuring its impressive productivity is matched by unimpeachable scientific rigor and transparency.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.388, which is higher than the national average of 1.800. This indicates that the university is more exposed to the risks associated with multiple affiliations than its national peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The university's heightened score suggests a need to review its affiliation policies to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent contributions, thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.
With a Z-score of 0.418, the institution's rate of retracted publications is nearly identical to the national average of 0.437. This alignment suggests the university is experiencing a systemic pattern of risk that reflects shared practices or vulnerabilities at a national level. Retractions are complex events, but a rate that signals medium risk points to a potential weakness in pre-publication quality control mechanisms. The data indicates that, like its peers across the country, the institution may benefit from reinforcing its integrity culture and methodological rigor to prevent recurring malpractice or unintentional errors that could lead to retractions.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.643, a figure significantly lower than the national average of 1.325. This demonstrates a differentiated and more effective management of this particular risk. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution shows greater success in avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. By moderating this practice more effectively than its national counterparts, the university ensures its academic influence is less susceptible to inflation by internal dynamics and more reliant on genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.258, which is well below the national average of -0.082. This result indicates that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. A low rate of publication in discontinued journals is a strong positive signal, demonstrating effective due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice protects the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing and shows a commitment to channeling its scientific output through credible and ethically sound media.
The university's Z-score of 4.277 is in the significant risk category, but it is notably lower than the critical national average of 5.104. This situation represents an attenuated alert; while the institution is an outlier on a global scale, it demonstrates more control over this issue than its peers within a highly compromised national environment. In fields outside of "Big Science," such extensive author lists can indicate inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's relative containment suggests it is partially mitigating this trend, but the high score remains a signal to actively distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 2.346, the institution shows a moderate gap, which signifies relative containment when compared to the significant risk level seen in the national average of 3.814. This suggests the university operates with more order and is building a more sustainable model of scientific prestige. A wide gap often signals that an institution's impact is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The university's more controlled score indicates a healthier balance, suggesting that its excellence metrics are increasingly rooted in real internal capacity and a growing ability to exercise intellectual leadership in its collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of 3.074 places it in the significant risk category, a critical concern as it is substantially higher than the national medium-risk average of 1.980. This finding indicates a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies vulnerabilities already present in the national system. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can point to severe integrity risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or authorship assigned without real participation. This critical anomaly requires an urgent review of internal evaluation and authorship policies to rebalance the focus from sheer quantity to the quality and integrity of the scientific record.
The university shows a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low risk and a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.102). This is a sign of excellent governance. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice strengthens the credibility of its research, enhances its global visibility, and demonstrates a commitment to competitive validation over using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.091, a figure that, while in the medium-risk category, is substantially lower than the national average of 0.930. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears to be common practice in the country. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' artificially inflates productivity by fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units. The university's ability to contain this practice suggests a culture that places a higher value on generating significant new knowledge over maximizing publication counts, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.
