Assam University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Assam University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.128 indicating performance that is well-aligned with international standards of good practice. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, retracted output, leadership impact gap, hyperprolific authors, and output in its own journals. These results suggest a solid foundation of responsible research conduct. However, two areas require strategic attention: a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a similar risk level for redundant publications (salami slicing). These vulnerabilities stand in contrast to the institution's strong academic positioning, as evidenced by its national leadership in key areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Energy, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Medicine. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these identified risks could potentially undermine the universal academic goals of pursuing excellence and upholding social responsibility. By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Assam University can further solidify its reputation and ensure its research practices fully reflect its demonstrated thematic excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.338 is notably lower than the national average of -0.927, indicating an exemplary standard of transparency in authorship. This total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals even below the national benchmark, confirms that the institution's crediting practices are clear and unambiguous. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the exceptionally low rate here suggests a complete lack of any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of straightforward and honest academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution demonstrates a strong preventive isolation from the risk of retractions, a stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.279. This result suggests that the institution does not replicate the systemic risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A high rate of retractions can signal a failure in quality control mechanisms prior to publication; however, Assam University's very low score points to the opposite: a robust system of supervision and methodological rigor that effectively prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or systemic errors that lead to such integrity breaches.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a low Z-score of -0.137, demonstrating institutional resilience against the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk Z-score of 0.520. This indicates that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the country's systemic risks in this area. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's controlled rate suggests it avoids the 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from disproportionately high values. This responsible practice ensures that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader scientific community, not just by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.558 is a point of concern, indicating a high exposure to this risk factor that is more pronounced than the national average of 1.099. This pattern suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to showing alert signals in this area. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.083, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -1.024. This low rate demonstrates a well-managed approach to authorship. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's score suggests it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding transparency and responsibility in its publication practices.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.856, a very low-risk signal that demonstrates greater consistency than the national average of -0.292. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard, is a strong indicator of sustainable and autonomous research capacity. A wide positive gap can suggest that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structural. The institution's excellent score indicates that its high-impact research is a result of its own intellectual leadership, confirming that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.984 is in the very low-risk category, a significantly better performance than the national low-risk average of -0.067. This low-profile consistency, with risk signals well below the national standard, points to a healthy research environment. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The near-absence of this phenomenon at the institution suggests a culture that prioritizes scientific integrity over the inflation of metrics, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in total alignment with the national average of -0.250, reflecting an environment of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment to avoiding potential conflicts of interest. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create academic endogamy, where production bypasses independent external peer review. The institution's very low rate confirms its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is assessed through standard, impartial channels.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of 1.141, the institution shows a high exposure to this risk, a level that is more pronounced than the national medium-risk average of 0.720. This indicates that the center is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value serves as an alert that this practice may be distorting the scientific evidence produced by the institution and overburdening the review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.