| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.757 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.352 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.139 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.118 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.131 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.137 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.838 | 0.720 |
Dr Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya presents a global performance profile (Overall Score: -0.066) that is closely aligned with international standards, yet reveals a duality in its scientific integrity landscape. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths and robust controls in areas such as Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating a healthy culture regarding authorship attribution and publication channel selection. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk vulnerabilities in Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and Redundant Output, which are more pronounced than the national average and suggest a need to reinforce quality assurance mechanisms. Thematically, the university shows significant national standing in key disciplines, including Environmental Science, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully realize its mission of achieving the "highest quality of learning and research" and becoming a "world class University," it is crucial to address these integrity risks, as they could undermine the credibility and external validation essential for global recognition. A strategic focus on strengthening pre-publication review and fostering a culture of rigorous external validation will be key to ensuring that its research practices fully align with its ambitious vision.
The institution's Z-score is -0.757, while the national average is -0.927.
This comparison points to a slight divergence from the national trend. While the country as a whole shows virtually no signals of this risk, the institution registers a low but discernible level of activity. This suggests that the university's researchers may be engaging in collaborative practices leading to multiple affiliations more frequently than their national peers. Although the rate is low and likely reflects legitimate partnerships, it warrants observation to ensure these affiliations are a result of genuine scientific collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.352, while the national average is 0.279.
This result indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, as the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than the national average, even within a context where this is a shared vulnerability. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than its peers suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This pattern alerts to a potential 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 commitment to the "highest quality of research".
The institution's Z-score is 1.139, significantly higher than the national average of 0.520.
This value signals high exposure, indicating the institution is more susceptible to this risk than its national counterparts. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the disproportionately high rate here warns of potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community, a critical concern for a university with global aspirations.
The institution's Z-score is 0.118, which is significantly lower than the national average of 1.099.
This score reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution effectively moderates a risk that appears to be common at the national level. While the country shows a medium-level vulnerability to publishing in journals that do not meet international standards, the university demonstrates strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This proactive stance protects the institution from severe reputational risks and indicates a high level of information literacy, preventing the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score is -1.131, compared to the national average of -1.024.
This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the national standard of low activity. The institution shows no signs of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This responsible approach to authorship attribution is a strength, ensuring that credit is assigned transparently and appropriately, which is fundamental for maintaining research integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.137, in contrast to the national average of -0.292.
This result indicates a moderate deviation, as the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. The positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be dependent on external collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships. Fostering and promoting research where institutional authors have leadership roles is key to building a structural and sustainable scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score is -1.413, while the national average is -0.067.
This score indicates low-profile consistency, with the institution's absence of risk signals aligning with the low-risk national standard. The data shows no evidence of authors with extreme publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, and an environment free from practices like coercive or honorary authorship, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, nearly identical to the national average of -0.250.
This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. The institution demonstrates no excessive dependence on its own journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer-reviewed channels, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which is essential for achieving global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score is 0.838, which is higher than the national average of 0.720.
This value points to high exposure, as the institution is more prone to this risk than the national average within a system already showing medium-level signals. A high rate of bibliographic overlap between publications alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
