| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.924 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.200 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.621 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.163 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.608 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.531 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.361 | 0.720 |
Guru Nanak Dev University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.215 indicating performance significantly better than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and publication in institutional journals, reflecting strong internal governance and quality control. Areas requiring strategic attention include moderate signals in institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and a notable gap between the impact of its total output and that of its leadership-driven research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly prominent in Social Sciences, Energy, and Medicine, where it holds top national rankings. As the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, it is crucial to note that the identified risk areas, though moderate, could undermine universally held academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To secure its leadership in key disciplines and further enhance its solid integrity framework, it is recommended that the university focuses on developing policies to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, particularly concerning impact dependency and publication channel selection.
The institution's Z-score of -0.924 is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.927. This demonstrates a state of integrity synchrony, where the university's practices are totally consistent with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. The absence of risk signals confirms that affiliations are managed transparently and legitimately, reflecting genuine researcher mobility and partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.437, the institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of retractions, in stark contrast to the moderate risk level seen nationally (Z-score: 0.279). This suggests a dynamic of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk patterns observed in its environment. Such a low score is a strong indicator of effective pre-publication quality control and responsible supervision, suggesting that the institution's integrity culture successfully prevents the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a higher retraction rate.
The institution presents a moderate Z-score of 0.200, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.520. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, the institution's controlled rate suggests it is less prone to operating within 'echo chambers' or engaging in endogamous impact inflation. This indicates a healthier balance between internal validation and external scientific scrutiny compared to its national peers.
The university's Z-score of 0.621 is moderate but reflects a more controlled situation than the national average of 1.099. This demonstrates differentiated management, indicating that the institution is more effectively mitigating the risks associated with publishing in low-quality venues. Although a moderate signal is present, the lower score suggests a more rigorous due diligence process in selecting dissemination channels. This helps to reduce exposure to the severe reputational damage linked to 'predatory' practices, a vulnerability that appears more pronounced at the national level.
The institution's Z-score of -1.163 is extremely low and aligns with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -1.024). This low-profile consistency shows that the absence of risk signals is in line with the national standard. The data confirms that authorship practices are well-governed and transparent, with no indication of author list inflation. This responsible approach ensures that credit is tied to meaningful contributions, avoiding the dilution of individual accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.608, the institution shows a moderate positive gap, representing a deviation from the national average, which sits at a low-risk -0.292. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor compared to its peers. The score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be significantly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reliance on exogenous impact poses a sustainability risk and invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or strategic positioning within external partnerships.
The institution's Z-score of -0.531 is well within the low-risk category and is considerably better than the national average of -0.067. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. The lower rate of hyperprolific authors indicates that institutional policies likely foster a healthy balance between productivity and quality, effectively discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of publication volume over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.250, reflecting integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment in a very low-risk area demonstrates a strong commitment to external, independent peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated competitively by the global community rather than through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution displays a low-risk Z-score of -0.361, which stands in positive contrast to the moderate-risk national average of 0.720. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. The low score indicates that the university effectively discourages 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant work protects the integrity of scientific evidence and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
