| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.397 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.592 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.706 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.116 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.786 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.452 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.014 | 0.720 |
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.362, characterized by areas of exceptional control alongside specific, high-risk vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. The institution demonstrates robust governance in key areas, showing a minimal risk profile in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating strong internal policies in these domains. Conversely, the analysis reveals critical alerts for the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Redundant Output, suggesting systemic issues in pre-publication quality control and research ethics that could compromise the institution's scientific credibility. These integrity challenges coexist with notable thematic strengths, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where the university holds prominent national positions in Environmental Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, such significant integrity risks directly contradict the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. Addressing these vulnerabilities is crucial to ensure that the institution's strong research output in its key areas is built on a foundation of irrefutable integrity. A strategic focus on reinforcing peer-review and publication ethics training will be essential to align its practices with its demonstrated research potential.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.397, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.927. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals related to affiliation integrity, positioning the university as a model of good practice that exceeds the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's extremely low rate demonstrates a clear and transparent approach to academic crediting, free from any signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.592, a significant value that stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.279. This disparity suggests that the university is not only experiencing a higher rate of retractions than its national peers but is also amplifying systemic vulnerabilities present in the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requiring immediate qualitative verification by management.
With a Z-score of 0.706, the institution shows a higher rate of self-citation compared to the national average of 0.520. This suggests the institution is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution's Z-score of 0.116 is considerably lower than the national average of 1.099, both of which fall within a medium-risk context. This indicates that the university is effectively managing a risk that appears to be more common across the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The institution's ability to moderate this trend suggests a more informed approach to publication strategy, successfully avoiding many of the media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and thereby mitigating severe reputational risks.
The institution's Z-score of -0.786 is slightly higher than the national average of -1.024, signaling a minor but noteworthy presence of this risk factor. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal should prompt an internal review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential emergence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.452, a moderate risk level that deviates from the low-risk national average of -0.292. This indicates a greater sensitivity to factors of dependency, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige may be more reliant on external partners. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authors, a figure that aligns with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.067). This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the institution's research environment is not conducive to the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. This lack of signals indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.250, both indicating a very low risk. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. While in-house journals can be valuable, the institution shows no excessive dependence on them, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of 3.014, the institution shows a critical level of risk in this area, significantly amplifying the moderate risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.720). This high value serves as a major alert for the practice of data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing.' The massive and recurring bibliographic overlap detected suggests a pattern of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, a trend that requires urgent corrective action.
