Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.188 indicating a performance that is generally aligned with expected standards but with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and publication in its own journals, successfully isolating itself from national trends of academic endogamy and authorship inflation. Furthermore, it shows commendable resilience by keeping its rate of retractions low despite a higher national average. Key vulnerabilities emerge in three medium-risk areas: the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, the Rate of Redundant Output, and most significantly, the Gap between the impact of its total output and that of its leadership output. This latter indicator suggests a dependency on external collaborations for impact, which could challenge the long-term sustainability of its research ecosystem. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's primary thematic strength lies in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where it ranks 9th in India. To fully realize its mission of achieving "sustainable excellence" and a "robust research ecosystem," it is crucial to address the identified risks. A dependency on external leadership for impact and engagement with questionable publication channels directly contradict the principles of "institutional distinctiveness" and academic excellence. A proactive strategy to bolster internal research leadership and enhance publication literacy will be essential to fortify its scientific integrity and secure its strategic goals.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.834 shows a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.927. While the country as a whole exhibits a very low incidence of this risk, the university displays signals of activity that, although minor, are not present in the national baseline. This suggests an emerging pattern that warrants observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight uptick compared to a very quiet national environment could be an early indicator of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” a practice that should be monitored to ensure all affiliations are substantive.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience when compared to the national Z-score of 0.279. The university maintains a low-risk profile in an environment where retractions are a more significant issue. This suggests that the institution's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. A low rate of retractions, in this context, signifies that pre-publication processes are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be more prevalent elsewhere, thereby protecting the institution's integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university exhibits a state of preventive isolation with a Z-score of -0.937, in stark contrast to the national Z-score of 0.520. This outstanding result indicates that the institution does not replicate the high-risk dynamics of self-citation observed across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s very low rate demonstrates that it avoids the concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This performance is a strong signal that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.449 reflects a more differentiated management of publication risk compared to the national Z-score of 1.099. Although both the university and the country operate at a medium-risk level, the institution is successfully moderating a risk that appears more common nationally. This indicates a more effective, though not yet complete, due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert, and while the university performs better than its peers, this score still suggests that a portion of its scientific production is channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, highlighting a need for enhanced information literacy to avoid reputational harm.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.233, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, aligning with the low-risk national standard indicated by a Z-score of -1.024. The complete absence of risk signals in this area is a positive indicator of sound governance and transparency in authorship. This performance confirms that the university's authorship practices are well-regulated, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and potentially problematic "honorary" or political authorship, thereby ensuring that individual accountability is maintained.

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

A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score at 1.611, showing greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers, whose average Z-score is -0.292. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent on external partners and may not be structural. The high value indicates that while overall impact is significant, the impact of research led by the institution itself is comparatively low. This invites critical reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.800, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score of -0.067). Although both are in a low-risk category, the university's significantly lower score indicates stronger oversight of individual publication volumes. This suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating the risks associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This control helps ensure that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical Z-score of -0.250. This total alignment in a very low-risk area is a sign of maximum scientific security. It confirms that the institution, like its peers, avoids excessive dependence on in-house journals, thereby preventing potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.592, the institution shows evidence of differentiated management compared to the national Z-score of 0.720. Both the university and the country show medium-risk levels for this indicator, but the institution is moderating the practice of redundant publication more effectively than the national average. This score still serves as an alert for 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. While the university is containing this behavior better than its peers, the presence of this risk suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.