| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.083 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.193 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.509 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.686 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.315 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.522 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.371 | 0.720 |
With an overall integrity score of -0.033, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University demonstrates a robust and well-aligned performance, positioning it as a benchmark of scientific rigor within the national context. The institution exhibits exceptional control over its research practices, showing remarkable resilience against systemic risks prevalent in the country, particularly concerning retracted output, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications. This strong foundation of integrity is a critical asset that directly supports its mission to establish "Centres of Excellence." The University's academic strengths are prominently reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top national positions in key market-oriented fields such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 22nd in India), Social Sciences (26th), Earth and Planetary Sciences (41st), and Business, Management and Accounting (49th). However, a notable vulnerability exists in the rate of publication in discontinued journals, which could undermine its pursuit of excellence and its commitment to serving industry needs with credible, high-quality research. To fully realize its strategic vision, the University is encouraged to implement targeted educational initiatives and strengthen its due diligence protocols for selecting publication venues, thereby ensuring its operational practices are in complete harmony with its stated mission of leadership and quality.
The institution's Z-score of -0.083 for this indicator, compared to the national average of -0.927, points to a slight divergence from the country's norm. While the national environment shows a near-total absence of this risk signal, the University exhibits a minimal but observable level of activity. This suggests that while multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution should remain aware of this metric. A disproportionate rate could, in other circumstances, signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, and this minor deviation warrants passive monitoring to ensure it remains within expected collaborative patterns.
With a Z-score of -0.193, the University demonstrates significant institutional resilience, particularly when contrasted with the national average of 0.279. This performance indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk that is more pronounced at the systemic level. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national context suggests that the University's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and successful. This strong result is a positive reflection of the institution's integrity culture and its commitment to methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score of -0.509 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.520, showcasing a commendable ability to avoid systemic risks. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the country's average suggests a moderate tendency towards internal validation. The University, however, operates with a much lower rate, indicating it successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.
The University's Z-score of 1.686 is a point of concern, as it is elevated above the already moderate national average of 1.099. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone than its national peers to channeling its research into precarious venues. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production may be directed towards media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, warranting an urgent review of information literacy and guidance provided to researchers.
With a Z-score of -1.315, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, aligning well with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -1.024). This very low rate indicates that the University's authorship practices are transparent and accountable. The data suggests a healthy research culture that avoids the risk of author list inflation, which can dilute individual responsibility. This strong performance confirms that authorship is likely awarded based on genuine contribution rather than 'honorary' or political considerations.
The institution's Z-score of -0.522, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.292, reflects a prudent and sustainable impact profile. This result indicates that the University manages its collaborative and internal research with greater rigor than the national standard. A low or negative score in this indicator is a positive sign, suggesting that the scientific prestige of the institution is not dependent on external partners but is driven by strong internal capacity. This demonstrates that the University exercises intellectual leadership in its research, a key marker of a structurally sound and self-sufficient academic entity.
The University's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a complete operational silence on this indicator, a positive finding that aligns with the low-risk national context (Z-score of -0.067). The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality of research output. This result indicates that the University is effectively avoiding dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record and prioritizing meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.250. This total alignment in an area of maximum scientific security confirms that the University is not overly reliant on its own publication channels. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. It reflects a commitment to global visibility and standard competitive validation for its research, reinforcing its credibility on an international stage.
The institution's Z-score of -0.371 showcases strong resilience against a risk that is moderately present at the national level (Z-score of 0.720). This performance suggests that the University's internal controls and academic culture effectively discourage the practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' By maintaining a low rate of redundant output, the institution demonstrates a commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics. This approach strengthens the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system.
