Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a favorable overall score of -0.217, which indicates a general absence of significant risk signals. Key strengths are evident in its very low rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and redundant output, often performing better than the national average. The university also shows notable resilience, maintaining low risk levels for retractions and self-citation in a national context where these are medium-risk issues. The primary area for strategic attention is a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which exceeds the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, and Environmental Science. The institution's mission to train "quality human resource" and conduct "effective transfer of technology" is well-supported by its strong overall integrity profile. However, the identified risk of publishing in discontinued journals could undermine this mission by channeling valuable research into low-quality or predatory venues, compromising the perceived quality and effectiveness of its scientific contributions. By addressing this specific vulnerability related to publication channel selection, the university can further solidify its position as a leader in responsible research practices, fully aligning its operational integrity with its stated mission of excellence and social contribution.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.574 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.927, indicating a complete absence of risk signals in this area and demonstrating a clear and transparent affiliation policy. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's exceptionally low score confirms that its collaborative practices are well-defined and not leveraged for artificial credit, reflecting a healthy and straightforward approach to institutional partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.090, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, in stark contrast to the medium-risk level observed nationally (0.279). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in its environment. A rate of retractions significantly higher than the global average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. The university's performance indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that appears to be a broader challenge in the country.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.366 places it in the low-risk category, demonstrating strong resilience against the national trend, where the average Z-score of 0.520 indicates a medium risk. This suggests the university successfully promotes external validation of its research. Disproportionately high rates of self-citation can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. The university's low score indicates its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.584 is in the medium-risk range and notably higher than the national average of 1.099. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting that the university is more prone than its national peers to publishing in questionable venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.269 indicates a very low risk of hyper-authorship, which is consistent with the low-risk national context (-1.024). This alignment demonstrates that the university's authorship practices are conventional and transparent. When the pattern of extensive author lists appears outside 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's very low score confirms that its research culture promotes clear and appropriate attribution of credit, avoiding practices like 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

With a Z-score of -0.801, the institution shows a very low-risk profile in this indicator, fitting well within the low-risk national environment (-0.292). This result indicates a healthy balance between the impact of its overall collaborative output and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. A very wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a sustainability risk. The university's low score suggests that its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity and that it exercises intellectual leadership within its collaborations, ensuring sustainable scientific prestige.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, aligning with the low-risk national standard (-0.067) and showing an even stronger control over this phenomenon. This signals a healthy balance between productivity and quality. A high indicator in this area alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's very low score indicates that its research environment prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

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 complete alignment with a national environment where this practice is not a risk factor. This indicates a shared and responsible approach to the use of in-house journals. Excessive dependence on institutional journals raises conflicts of interest and can lead to academic endogamy, where scientific production might bypass independent external peer review. The university's score demonstrates that it relies on external, competitive validation for its research, ensuring its work has global visibility and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution exhibits a very low-risk Z-score of -1.186, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.720). This preventive stance suggests a strong institutional culture that discourages data fragmentation. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing'. The university's very low score confirms that its researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over the pursuit of volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.