Assam Agricultural University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Assam Agricultural University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.324 indicating performance significantly better than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in managing risks related to author practices and publication ethics, showing very low to non-existent signals in Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, Institutional Journal Output, and Redundant Output. Furthermore, it displays notable resilience by maintaining low risk in Retracted Output and Self-Citation, areas where the national context shows more vulnerability. The primary areas for strategic attention are a medium risk associated with publishing in Discontinued Journals and, most significantly, a dependency on external collaborations for impact (Ni_difference). According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are clearly concentrated in areas central to its purpose, including a top-tier national ranking in Veterinary (9th in India), alongside strong positions in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. These results largely align with its mission to lead agricultural growth through science and technology transfer. However, the identified risk of impact dependency could challenge its long-term goal of being a primary source of innovation, while publishing in low-quality journals contradicts the pursuit of excellence. The university's strong integrity foundation is a key asset; a focused effort to bolster internal research leadership and refine its publication strategy will ensure its scientific output fully supports its vital mission.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -1.335, significantly lower than the national average of -0.927, the institution demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This exceptional performance indicates total operational silence, suggesting that affiliation practices are managed with exemplary clarity and transparency. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's data confirms it is not engaging in strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.184 that contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk average of 0.279. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic pressures for retractions seen elsewhere in the country. A rate significantly lower than the national average points to a robust integrity culture, where responsible supervision and methodological rigor likely prevent the kind of recurring malpractice or systemic failures in quality control that a higher score would imply.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university demonstrates effective control over citation practices, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.721 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.520. This indicates institutional resilience, as the center avoids the national trend toward potential scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate confirms its work is validated by sufficient external scrutiny rather than being at risk of creating an 'echo chamber.' This healthy engagement with the global community suggests its academic influence is earned through broad recognition, not inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.485 places it in the medium-risk category, yet it reflects differentiated management compared to the higher national average of 1.099. This indicates that while the university is not immune to the problem, it moderates a risk that is more common nationally. Nonetheless, a medium score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.052, which is nearly identical to the national average of -1.024, the institution's risk level is a reflection of statistical normality. This low-risk profile is as expected for its context and size. It suggests that its authorship practices are generally transparent and accountable, and that extensive author lists are likely the result of legitimate, necessary massive collaboration in its fields rather than a signal of author list inflation or the presence of 'honorary' authorships that dilute individual responsibility.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.675 represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.292. This score indicates the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers, revealing a wide positive gap where its global impact is high but the impact of research it leads is comparatively low. This signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from its positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -1.413 indicating a complete absence of risk signals, which aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.067). This very low score confirms that the university's research environment fosters a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It avoids the risks associated with extreme individual publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record by prioritizing meaningful contribution over sheer metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with the country's secure environment (Z-score of -0.250). This very low score indicates that the university does not rely on its in-house journals for dissemination, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production bypasses the risks of academic endogamy and undergoes independent external peer review, securing global visibility through standard competitive validation rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The university achieves preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.186 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.720. This shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The absence of signals for massive bibliographic overlap between publications indicates a culture that discourages data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This commitment to publishing coherent studies over artificially inflating productivity metrics strengthens the scientific evidence base and prioritizes significant new knowledge over volume.