| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.027 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.000 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.096 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.155 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.925 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.117 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.187 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.212 | 0.720 |
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University demonstrates a commendable overall scientific integrity profile, characterized by robust controls in authorship and citation practices but marked by specific, high-impact vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 0.277, the institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and output in institutional journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes transparent and externally validated research. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant challenges, most notably a critical rate of retracted output and medium-risk indicators related to publication in discontinued journals and a dependency on external collaborations for scientific impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research is particularly strong in Environmental Science, Energy, and its core area of Agricultural and Biological Sciences. The high rate of retractions directly threatens the "excellence" and "social responsibility" that are fundamental to any academic mission, as it can undermine public trust and the reliability of the scientific record. To secure its reputation and build upon its thematic strengths, the university is advised to leverage its well-controlled areas to implement rigorous pre-publication quality assurance and mentorship programs, thereby transforming its current vulnerabilities into future pillars of scientific integrity.
With a Z-score of -1.027, significantly lower than the national average of -0.927, the institution exhibits a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This exceptional result indicates that its affiliation practices are even more conservative and transparent than the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's data, however, suggests total operational silence on this front, reflecting a clear and unambiguous policy that prevents any potential for "affiliation shopping" and reinforces the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
The institution's Z-score of 1.000 for retracted output is a point of critical concern, significantly amplifying the medium-risk vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.279). Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the national average suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This high Z-score alerts to a pronounced vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.096, effectively mitigating the systemic risk of moderate self-citation observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.520). A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the country's higher average points to a broader tendency toward 'echo chambers'. In contrast, the institution's low score indicates that its research is validated through robust external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics, successfully avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating healthy integration within the global scientific community.
With a Z-score of 1.155, the institution shows a higher exposure to publishing in discontinued journals compared to the national average of 1.099. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the university is slightly more prone to this alert signal. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This heightened exposure indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is at risk of being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid reputational damage and the waste of research resources.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.925, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -1.024. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. In fields outside of 'Big Science', extensive author lists can indicate inflation or a dilution of individual accountability. While the risk is currently low and aligns with the national context, this signal should prompt a review to ensure all authorship is meaningful and to preemptively address any trend toward 'honorary' practices before it escalates.
A moderate deviation from the national standard is evident, with the institution's Z-score of 1.117 contrasting sharply with the country's low-risk score of -0.292. This indicates a greater sensitivity to dependency on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap, as seen here, signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be largely exogenous and not reflective of its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal leadership or from a supporting role in collaborations led by others.
The institution maintains an exemplary low-profile consistency with a Z-score of -1.187, far below the already low-risk national benchmark of -0.067. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns perfectly with responsible research standards. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This university's data, however, points to a healthy balance between productivity and quality, indicating that risks such as coercive authorship or credit without real participation are effectively controlled, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
A state of integrity synchrony is observed, with the institution's Z-score of -0.268 being in total alignment with the national average of -0.250. Both scores reflect an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The university's commitment to publishing in external venues demonstrates a clear preference for independent peer review and global validation, ensuring its research competes on merit and avoids the risk of using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution displays notable institutional resilience, with its low-risk Z-score of -0.212 standing in stark contrast to the medium-risk national trend (Z-score: 0.720). This suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national vulnerability. Massive bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining a low rate, the university demonstrates a commitment to publishing significant, coherent knowledge, thereby strengthening the value of its scientific contributions and avoiding an unnecessary burden on the peer review system.
