| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.551 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.127 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.536 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.235 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.634 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.323 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.284 | 0.720 |
Dibrugarh University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its low overall risk score of 0.111. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining transparent authorship and affiliation practices, with exceptionally low risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, its effective quality control mechanisms are evident in a low rate of retractions, outperforming the national trend. Key areas for strategic attention include a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could challenge the institution's mission to provide "value oriented education" and foster "sustainable development." The university's strong academic positioning, particularly in high-ranking fields such as Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Computer Science according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a solid foundation for this work. To fully align its research practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university focuses on enhancing researcher guidance on selecting high-quality publication venues and developing strategies to cultivate independent, high-impact research leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.551 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.927, indicating a state of total operational silence in this area. This absence of risk signals, even when compared to a low-risk national environment, points to exceptionally clear and well-managed affiliation policies. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university’s data shows no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a culture of transparency and straightforward academic collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.127, the university displays strong institutional resilience, particularly when contrasted with the national average of 0.279, which signals a systemic issue. This suggests that the institution's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating the risks of methodological error or malpractice that appear more prevalent at the country level. This proactive stance protects the integrity of its scientific record and demonstrates a responsible approach to research oversight, turning potential crises into opportunities for reinforcing rigor.
The institution's Z-score of 0.536 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.520, indicating that its performance reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the country's academic landscape. While a certain level of self-citation is natural for developing established research lines, this value warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This alignment with a national trend suggests that the institution's academic influence may risk being oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score of 2.235 is substantially higher than the national average of 1.099, signaling a high exposure to this risk factor. This indicates that the institution is more prone than its national peers to channel research through media that fail to meet international quality standards. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational damage. The data suggests an urgent need to implement information literacy programs to help researchers avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.
With a Z-score of -0.634, the institution's risk level is low but slightly higher than the national average of -1.024. This differential points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this signal suggests a need to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines are transparent and accountable. Monitoring is recommended to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential emergence of 'honorary' authorship, which can dilute individual responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.323 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.292, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk compared to its peers. This positive gap suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This creates a sustainability risk, signaling that its high-impact metrics could be a result of strategic positioning rather than inherent internal capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase the impact of its own-led research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, contrasting with the national average of -0.067. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the near-total absence of hyperprolific authors aligns with a culture of scientific integrity. This result indicates a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in close alignment with the national average of -0.250, reflecting an integrity synchrony with its environment. This shared commitment to minimal reliance on in-house journals ensures that scientific production is subjected to independent, external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of the university's research, steering clear of academic endogamy and the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score of 0.284, while in the medium-risk range, is considerably lower than the national average of 0.720. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the university is actively moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. This suggests a successful effort to discourage 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications. By doing so, the institution promotes the publication of significant, coherent knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
