Sanskriti University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Sanskriti University demonstrates a strong overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in its low-risk score of 1.163. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in managing risks related to authorship and citation practices, with very low rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors. These strengths indicate a robust culture of transparency and a commitment to external validation. However, this positive outlook is critically undermined by a significant-risk score in publications within discontinued journals, alongside medium-risk signals in redundant output and a dependency on external collaborations for impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows notable research activity in areas such as Veterinary, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Environmental Science. The identified risks, particularly the use of low-quality publication channels, directly challenge the institutional mission "to provide quality education... with high emphasis on outcomes, values and skills." This practice contradicts the stated commitment to quality and values, suggesting a gap between mission and operational reality. To fully align its scientific practices with its strategic vision, the university is advised to urgently implement policies and training focused on responsible publication choices, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its research outcomes are both valuable and sustainable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.480, which is even lower than the national average of -0.927. This indicates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, performing better than the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, an exceptionally low rate like this points to clear and well-defined institutional affiliation policies. It suggests that researchers' affiliations are declared transparently and consistently, avoiding any ambiguity or strategic inflation of institutional credit, which reinforces the university's commitment to straightforward academic accounting.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.033, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, contrasting with the medium-risk level seen across India (Z-score: 0.279). This suggests the presence of effective institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the national environment. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign, indicating that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and function effectively. This performance suggests a strong integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to higher retraction rates elsewhere.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -2.002 signals a very low risk, representing a case of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the risk is medium (Z-score: 0.520). This significant difference highlights that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this institution's exceptionally low rate demonstrates a strong outward-looking research focus, effectively avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This practice ensures its work is validated by the global community, mitigating any risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirming that its academic influence is earned through external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits a critical Z-score of 7.598, a significant-risk level that sharply accentuates the medium-risk vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score: 1.099). This severe discrepancy indicates that the university is amplifying a national weakness, channeling a significant portion of its scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. It suggests an urgent need for comprehensive information literacy and policy implementation to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices that damage institutional credibility.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.309, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile, demonstrating low-profile consistency with the national standard, which is also low-risk (Z-score: -1.024). The absence of risk signals in this area aligns perfectly with the national context. This indicates that authorship practices at the institution are well-calibrated, distinguishing clearly between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential author list inflation. This responsible approach ensures that individual accountability and transparency are maintained, avoiding the dilution of credit that can occur with 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.738 places it at a medium-risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.292). This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap, as indicated here, signals a potential sustainability risk where scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners. This finding invites strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or are primarily driven by a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, potentially creating a dependent and exogenous impact profile.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, showing consistency with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.067). This absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard, indicating a healthy research culture. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This low indicator suggests that the university fosters a balanced approach to productivity, avoiding potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and instead prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's risk level is very low and demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.250. This total alignment points to a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The university's low score indicates that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby avoiding academic endogamy, enhancing global visibility, and ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution's Z-score of 1.971 places it at a medium-risk level, but it reflects a high exposure compared to the national average, which is also medium-risk but at a lower Z-score of 0.720. This indicates that the center is more prone to showing alert signals for this practice than its environment average. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This dynamic, where massive bibliographic overlap occurs between publications, risks distorting the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system by prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.