| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.530 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.512 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.075 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.113 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.713 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.694 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.781 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.409 | 0.720 |
Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University presents a scientific integrity profile with notable strengths and specific, high-priority areas for strategic intervention. With a favorable overall score of 0.083, the institution demonstrates robust performance in critical areas of research quality, particularly its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, and publication in its own journals. These indicators suggest a culture of rigorous external validation and effective quality control. The university's research strengths, as reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, are most prominent in fields such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, and Engineering. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a significant risk signal in the rate of hyperprolific authors, which requires immediate attention. This practice, along with medium-risk indicators related to impact dependency and publication strategies, could undermine the pursuit of genuine academic excellence and social responsibility that forms the core of any higher education mission. By leveraging its demonstrated capacity for sound governance, the university is well-positioned to address these vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to producing research of enduring quality and impact.
The institution's Z-score of -0.530 indicates a low signal for this risk, though it represents a slight divergence from the national context, where the average Z-score is -0.927 and the risk is considered very low. This suggests the emergence of risk activity at the university that is not yet apparent in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation warrants observation. It serves as an early indicator to ensure that affiliation practices remain transparent and are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.512, the university demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, placing it in a position of preventive isolation from the national trend (Z-score: 0.279), where this indicator signals a medium risk. This strong performance suggests that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the average points toward robust and effective quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This result is a positive sign of a healthy integrity culture, indicating that potential methodological flaws or malpractice are successfully filtered out, safeguarding the institution's scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -1.075 is firmly in the very low-risk category, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.520, which falls into the medium-risk range. This excellent result signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the institution avoids the risk patterns prevalent in its national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's low rate indicates it is not operating within a scientific 'echo chamber.' This demonstrates a strong connection to the global research community and suggests that its academic influence is built on broad external recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous or internal validation dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.113 in this medium-risk category, which reflects a more controlled position compared to the national average of 1.099, also at a medium-risk level. This indicates a pattern of differentiated management, where the university appears to moderate a risk that is more pronounced across the country. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the risk is present, the university's lower score suggests its researchers exercise greater caution, thereby mitigating the severe reputational damage and wasted resources associated with channeling work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.
With a Z-score of -0.713, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, similar to the national average of -1.024. However, the university's score is slightly higher, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. This suggests the presence of signals that, while not yet alarming, warrant review before they escalate. In certain 'Big Science' fields, extensive author lists are legitimate, but a rising trend outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This minor elevation serves as a prompt to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and consistently distinguish between necessary mass collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' attributions.
The university's Z-score of 1.694 places this indicator in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the national standard, which has a low-risk Z-score of -0.292. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This value suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own structural and internal research capacity.
The institution's Z-score of 2.781 registers a significant risk, creating a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.067. This atypical level of risk activity is a critical finding that requires a deep integrity assessment. While high productivity can sometimes be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to serious risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and demand urgent review.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals, demonstrating integrity synchrony with the national environment (Z-score: -0.250), which is also in a state of maximum scientific security. This alignment is a mark of good practice. In-house journals can create conflicts of interest where an institution is both judge and party. By avoiding over-reliance on them, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances global visibility and confirms that its researchers are not using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The university's Z-score of 0.409 indicates a medium risk, but this performance reflects differentiated management when compared to the higher national average of 0.720, which is also in the medium-risk category. This suggests the institution is more effectively moderating a practice that appears common in the country. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. While the risk is present, the university's lower score indicates a stronger institutional focus on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, thereby reducing the burden on the peer-review system and distortion of scientific evidence.
