| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.236 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.474 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.027 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.581 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.366 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.173 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.698 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.669 | 0.720 |
Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology presents a solid and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall score of -0.054. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in governance and research sustainability, with exceptionally low-risk indicators for Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, and particularly the Gap between total and led impact, which signals robust internal capacity and intellectual leadership. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by medium-risk signals in Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Redundant Output, which require strategic oversight. These strengths are the bedrock of its notable national rankings in key disciplines such as Chemistry (10th), Social Sciences (64th), Physics and Astronomy (70th), and Computer Science (75th), based on SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's proven research leadership aligns perfectly with its mission to “strengthen the national economy,” the identified integrity risks present a direct challenge to its commitment to fostering “moral and ethical values” and “competence.” To fully realize its vision, it is recommended that the institution focuses on reinforcing its pre-publication quality control and author guidance protocols, ensuring that its operational practices are in complete harmony with its stated mission of ethical and technical excellence.
The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, with a Z-score of -1.236 that is even lower than the already low national average of -0.927. This indicates exemplary management of institutional affiliations. The indicator is designed to detect disproportionately high rates of multiple affiliations, which can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The institute's very low score demonstrates a clear and transparent policy, reinforcing its commitment to ethical academic accounting and avoiding any ambiguity in its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of 0.474, which is higher than the national average of 0.279, the institution shows a greater exposure to this risk compared to its national environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate that is notably higher than its peers suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This value serves as an alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution demonstrates effective management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.027 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.520. This indicates a successful moderation of a risk that appears more common across the country. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The institute's excellent performance suggests its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than through internal dynamics, effectively avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
With a Z-score of 0.581, the institution shows better control over a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score 1.099). This differentiated management is positive, yet the medium-risk signal remains a point of concern. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. The current level suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.366 is very low, aligning with the low-risk national context (Z-score -1.024) and demonstrating robust authorship practices. This indicator is designed to detect potential author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. The institute's excellent score confirms that its authorship attributions are transparent and legitimate, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally strong profile with a Z-score of -1.173, far surpassing the national context (Z-score -0.292). A high positive score in this indicator would suggest that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners, signaling a sustainability risk. In contrast, the institute's very low score indicates that the research it leads is highly impactful, demonstrating true internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This result points to a sustainable and structurally sound research ecosystem where excellence is generated from within.
The institution demonstrates a prudent approach to author productivity, with a Z-score of -0.698 that is significantly lower than the national average of -0.067. This indicates that its processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. This indicator flags extreme individual publication volumes that can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. The institute's rigorous management in this area suggests a healthy research culture that prioritizes meaningful scientific contributions over metric inflation, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive or honorary authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect alignment with the national environment (Z-score -0.250), which shows maximum security in this area. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared commitment to external validation. The indicator monitors for excessive dependence on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The institute's very low score confirms that its scientific production is overwhelmingly channeled through independent, external peer-reviewed venues, ensuring global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.669, while in the medium-risk category, is lower than the national average of 0.720, indicating a differentiated management of this practice. This indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, which distorts available scientific evidence. While the institution appears to moderate this risk better than its peers, the signal warrants attention to ensure that research contributions are substantive and prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over sheer publication volume.
