| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.243 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.626 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.503 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.995 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.775 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology presents a strong overall integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.215 indicating performance that is generally robust and well-managed. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over multiple integrity dimensions, showing very low risk in areas such as Multiple Affiliations, Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output. These strengths suggest a solid foundation of ethical research practices. However, this positive outlook is critically challenged by a significant risk in the 'Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership,' which points to a structural dependency on external collaborators for achieving high-impact research. This core vulnerability could undermine the long-term sustainability of the scientific prestige demonstrated in its key thematic areas, particularly in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Veterinary, where it holds a notable position according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While a specific mission statement was not available, this dependency on external leadership poses a direct threat to any institutional goal centered on achieving self-sustained excellence and fulfilling its social responsibility through homegrown innovation. To secure its future, the university is advised to leverage its solid integrity culture as a platform to strategically develop and promote internal research leadership, thereby transforming its collaborative successes into sovereign scientific capacity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.243 is notably lower than the national average of -0.927, indicating a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This operational silence suggests that researcher affiliations are managed with exceptional clarity and transparency. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the data here confirms that the university's practices align perfectly with legitimate academic activities such as researcher mobility and formal partnerships, reflecting a well-governed and unambiguous approach to academic collaboration.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution demonstrates remarkable resilience, maintaining a low-risk profile in a national context that shows a medium risk (Z-score of 0.279). This divergence suggests that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively filtering out potential issues before they escalate. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, a low rate in a higher-risk environment points to robust pre-publication vetting processes that successfully prevent systemic failures and protect the institution's reputation for methodological rigor.
The university exhibits a pattern of preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low Z-score of -1.626 compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.520. This strong outward-looking focus is a sign of a healthy and globally integrated research culture. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's extremely low rate confirms it avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This ensures its academic influence is a result of genuine recognition by the international community, not internal dynamics.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management in its choice of publication venues, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.503 that is considerably better than the national average of 1.099. This indicates that while the university is not immune to the national trend of publishing in questionable journals, it moderates this risk more effectively than its peers. Nevertheless, this remains a critical alert. A significant presence in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid channeling resources into 'predatory' or low-value outlets.
The institution's authorship patterns are in a state of statistical normality. Its Z-score of -0.995 is almost identical to the national average of -1.024, indicating that its level of extensive co-authorship is precisely what would be expected for its context. This alignment suggests that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' collaborations, there are no signals of author list inflation or practices like 'honorary' authorship that would dilute individual accountability and transparency.
A severe discrepancy in this indicator represents the institution's most critical vulnerability. Its Z-score of 3.775 is a significant anomaly, contrasting sharply with the low-risk national average of -0.292. This extremely wide positive gap signals a major sustainability risk, as it suggests the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This finding requires urgent strategic reflection, as it indicates that the university's high-impact metrics may result from a supporting role in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, questioning its ability to generate sovereign, high-quality research.
The institution shows low-profile consistency in author productivity, with a very low Z-score of -1.413 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.067. This confirms a complete absence of risk signals related to extreme publication volumes. The data indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, with no evidence of authorship practices that would challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This reinforces a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over purely metric-driven productivity.
An integrity synchrony is observed between the institution and its national environment. The university's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.250, both reflecting a very low risk. This alignment demonstrates a prudent use of in-house journals, avoiding excessive dependence that could create conflicts of interest or academic endogamy. By ensuring its scientific production primarily undergoes independent external peer review, the institution enhances its global visibility and upholds competitive validation standards.
The institution effectively isolates itself from a risk that is more prevalent at the national level. Its very low Z-score of -1.186 stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.720. This indicates the presence of a strong research culture that discourages the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge over volume, the university upholds the integrity of the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.
