Fakir Mohan University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Fakir Mohan University demonstrates a solid foundation in scientific integrity, reflected in an overall score of 0.203. This performance is characterized by exceptional control over procedural risks such as retracted output, multiple affiliations, and publication in institutional journals, where the University operates with maximum security. However, this profile is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in areas related to publication strategy and impact metrics, including institutional self-citation, redundant output (salami slicing), and a notable dependency on external collaborations for scientific impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's primary thematic strengths lie in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, where it holds a Top 10 national ranking, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. These areas of excellence provide a strong platform for growth, but the identified risks could undermine the institution's mission to foster "creativity and innovativeness" and achieve "sustainable development." A strategic focus on promoting genuine knowledge creation over metric inflation will be crucial to ensure that its research practices fully align with its commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility, thereby solidifying its reputation and impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.035, which is even lower than the national average of -0.927. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, positioning the University as a benchmark of transparency in its national context. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University's exceptionally low score suggests that its affiliations are managed with high integrity, reflecting genuine scientific partnerships rather than strategic "affiliation shopping," thereby ensuring clear and accurate attribution of its research output.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.559, the institution shows a very low risk of retracted publications, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.279). This demonstrates robust institutional governance and effective quality control mechanisms. A high rate of retractions can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication review or recurring malpractice. In contrast, the University’s excellent performance indicates a strong culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before publication, safeguarding its scientific reputation and contributing responsibly to the scholarly record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.812, placing it in the medium-risk category and notably higher than the national average of 0.520. This indicates a heightened exposure to practices that could lead to scientific isolation. While some self-citation reflects the natural progression of research, the University's rate suggests a greater-than-average tendency toward an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.668, a medium-risk value that is nevertheless significantly lower than the national average of 1.099. This suggests a differentiated and more effective management of publication channels compared to its national peers. Publishing in discontinued journals can expose an institution to severe reputational risks by associating its research with media that fail to meet international quality standards. The University’s ability to moderate this risk indicates a superior level of due diligence in selecting dissemination venues, thereby better protecting its research investment from predatory or low-quality practices common in the wider environment.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.063, which is statistically equivalent to the national average of -1.024, the institution's risk level is low and aligns perfectly with its context. This normality suggests that its authorship practices are appropriate and do not show signs of inflation. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can dilute individual accountability and signal the presence of 'honorary' authorships. The University’s score indicates that its collaborative patterns are transparent and legitimate, maintaining a healthy balance between teamwork and individual responsibility.

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

The institution's Z-score of 2.241 represents a medium-risk level, marking a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.292. This wide positive gap signals a potential risk to the sustainability of its scientific prestige. It suggests that while the University's overall impact is significant, this prestige is heavily dependent on external partners, with a lower impact observed for research where the institution exercises intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where its role may be secondary, highlighting a need to foster and promote its own research leaders.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University shows a medium-risk Z-score of 1.674, a notable deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.067). This greater sensitivity to risk factors points to potential imbalances between the quantity and quality of output from some individuals. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This alert suggests a need to review whether such patterns are linked to coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or other dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.250, reflecting a state of integrity synchrony with a secure national environment. Both scores are in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a healthy and commendable practice. Excessive reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The University’s minimal use of such channels indicates a strong commitment to seeking external, competitive validation for its research, thereby enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 2.018, the institution shows a high exposure to this medium-risk indicator, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.720. This is a critical alert regarding publication strategy. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. The University's high score suggests this practice may be more prevalent than in its peer environment, a dynamic that distorts scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.