| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.932 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.217 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.352 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.180 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.462 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.160 | 0.720 |
Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by a commendable overall score of -0.343. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship and affiliation practices, with very low risk signals in Hyperprolific Authors, Hyper-Authored Output, Multiple Affiliations, and Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, the university demonstrates significant resilience, maintaining low risk in areas like Retracted Output and Self-Citation, where the national context shows moderate vulnerabilities. The main areas for strategic attention are a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's most competitive thematic areas are in Business, Management and Accounting, Social Sciences, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. While the institution's mission was not specified, these findings underscore that any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally supported by a strong culture of integrity. Addressing the identified vulnerabilities, particularly ensuring research leadership translates into impact, will be crucial to fully realizing this mission and solidifying its reputation. The university is well-positioned to leverage its considerable strengths to refine its strategic approach and further enhance its scientific ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -0.932 is in perfect alignment with the national average of -0.927, indicating a state of integrity synchrony. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security suggests that the university's policies and researcher practices regarding affiliations are transparent and well-managed. There are no signals of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a healthy and legitimate approach to academic collaboration and researcher mobility.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.324, the institution demonstrates notable resilience, especially when contrasted with the medium-risk national average of 0.279. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. This strong performance indicates that quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that a higher rate could imply, thereby protecting the institution's integrity culture.
The university shows a low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.217) in a domain where the country exhibits a medium-risk tendency (Z-score: 0.520), highlighting strong institutional resilience. This performance indicates that the institution successfully avoids creating scientific 'echo chambers' or engaging in endogamous impact inflation. The data suggests that the academic influence of its research is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal citation dynamics, reflecting healthy integration into international scientific discourse.
The institution's medium-risk Z-score of 0.352, while an area for attention, reflects differentiated management when compared to the higher national average of 1.099. This suggests the university is already moderating a risk that is more common nationwide. Nonetheless, a medium-risk score constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, creating a need for enhanced information literacy to avoid reputational harm and the misallocation of research efforts.
The institution's very low-risk Z-score of -1.180 demonstrates low-profile consistency, aligning with and even improving upon the low-risk national standard of -1.024. This complete absence of risk signals points to healthy and transparent authorship practices. It suggests that author lists at the institution accurately reflect genuine intellectual contributions, effectively avoiding the risk of inflation through 'honorary' or political authorship and thus preserving individual accountability in research.
This indicator reveals a moderate deviation, as the institution's medium-risk Z-score of 0.462 contrasts with the low-risk national average of -0.292. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its peers. A significant positive gap warns of a potential sustainability risk, where the institution's overall scientific prestige may be overly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to strengthen internal research capacity to ensure that its high impact is structural and endogenous, not just a result of strategic positioning in external partnerships.
With a very low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows an absence of risk signals that aligns with the national standard (Z-score: -0.067) and demonstrates low-profile consistency. This result indicates a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. There is no evidence of extreme individual publication volumes that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, suggesting the institution is free from dynamics like coercive authorship or other practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.250, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects perfect integrity synchrony and total alignment with a national environment where academic endogamy is not a concern. This lack of dependence on in-house journals suggests that researchers prioritize validation through independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility of their work and avoids any potential conflicts of interest associated with the institution acting as both judge and party.
The institution's low-risk Z-score of -0.160 is a clear sign of institutional resilience, particularly when measured against the medium-risk national average of 0.720. This indicates that the university's research culture effectively discourages the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. Instead, the focus appears to be on producing coherent and significant contributions, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoiding an unnecessary burden on the peer-review system.
