Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.548 indicating a performance significantly healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its capacity for independent research impact, responsible authorship practices, and a commitment to external validation, as evidenced by very low-risk scores in indicators such as the impact gap, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship. The only notable vulnerability is a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which requires strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these sound integrity practices underpin GIMPA's national leadership in key thematic areas, including Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 5th in Ghana) and Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 6th in Ghana), as well as strong positions in Social Sciences and Environmental Science. This low-risk profile directly supports the institution's mission to provide "unbiased and dedicated advisory services" and enhance "sustainable development and management," as high ethical standards are foundational to credibility and trust. The identified risk in publication channels, however, could indirectly undermine this mission by associating the institution's output with low-quality platforms. We recommend GIMPA leverage its outstanding integrity profile as a hallmark of excellence while implementing targeted training on selecting high-quality journals to mitigate its sole vulnerability and further solidify its role as a national leader.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of -0.572, GIMPA exhibits a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.189. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating the systemic risks of affiliation inflation observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the national trend points towards a potential for strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit. GIMPA’s disciplined approach ensures that its affiliations are transparent and reflect genuine partnerships, safeguarding the integrity of its academic contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.343, indicating a prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the low-risk national standard of -0.138. This suggests that GIMPA's internal quality control processes are managed with exceptional care. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the norm is a strong positive signal. It indicates that the institution's pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are robust, effectively minimizing the risk of systemic errors or malpractice and reinforcing a culture of methodological rigor and integrity.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

GIMPA presents a Z-score of -1.232, a very low value that demonstrates low-profile consistency and a strong commitment to external validation, far exceeding the country's low-risk average of -0.160. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms it is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' This result provides strong evidence that GIMPA's academic influence is not inflated by endogamous dynamics but is instead earned through genuine recognition and scrutiny by the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.038 places it in the medium-risk category, though it reflects a more controlled situation than the national average of 0.177. This indicates a form of differentiated management, where GIMPA is moderating a risk that appears more common nationally. Nonetheless, a medium-risk score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international quality standards, exposing GIMPA to reputational risks. This highlights an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.084, GIMPA displays a prudent profile, managing authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard, which sits at -0.469. Given that the institution's core disciplines are not typically characterized by 'Big Science' collaborations, this low rate is a positive sign. It suggests a successful avoidance of author list inflation, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency. This result indicates a healthy research environment where 'honorary' or political authorship practices are discouraged, reinforcing the integrity of its scholarly contributions.

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

GIMPA's Z-score of -1.049 is an exceptional result, signaling a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where the national average is a medium-risk 0.556. A wide positive gap often suggests that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners. In contrast, GIMPA's negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by its own authors is robust and self-sufficient. This demonstrates a strong and sustainable internal capacity for excellence, proving that its scientific prestige is structural and homegrown, not merely the result of a strategic position in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies total operational silence in this risk area, a result even more favorable than the country's very low-risk average of -1.020. This complete absence of risk signals is a powerful indicator of a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It confirms that GIMPA is free from the potential negative dynamics associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, ensuring that intellectual contributions remain meaningful.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

GIMPA's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, reflecting perfect integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. This very low rate demonstrates a strong institutional commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates the risk of conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated competitively by the global community and achieves greater visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows total operational silence, with a near-complete absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the very low national average of -0.667. This outstanding result points to an institutional culture that values significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. It provides strong evidence that researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units—thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.