| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.110 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.756 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.369 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.153 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.871 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.082 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.789 | 0.720 |
The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences demonstrates a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.001 that aligns closely with the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication channels and collaborative practices, showing very low risk in redundant output, publications in discontinued or institutional journals, and multiple affiliations. Furthermore, it displays notable resilience, maintaining low rates of retractions and self-citation in a national context where these are medium-risk factors. Areas for strategic focus include a moderate incidence of hyper-prolific and hyper-authored publications, and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These findings are contextualized by the institution's outstanding thematic leadership, confirmed by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it as the national leader in Psychology (#1 in India) and a strong competitor in Medicine and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. While the institution's strong integrity profile largely supports its mission to "establish the highest standards of evidence-based care," the identified vulnerabilities in authorship and impact dependency could challenge the perception of genuine internal leadership and excellence. Addressing these moderate risks will be crucial to fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, solidifying its status as a beacon of scientific rigor and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score is -1.110, which is even lower than the country's already low average of -0.927. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, performing better than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's exceptionally low rate suggests that its collaborative framework and author affiliations are managed with outstanding clarity and transparency. This operational silence demonstrates a robust system that effectively prevents any strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” ensuring that credit is assigned accurately and ethically.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.071, indicating a low risk, which contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.279, a medium-risk value. This disparity suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed across the country. A high rate of retractions can signal systemic failures in quality control, but the institution's low score points towards a culture of responsible supervision and diligent error correction. This indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, protecting its scientific record from the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor seen elsewhere.
With a Z-score of -0.756, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in stark contrast to the national average of 0.520, which falls into the medium-risk category. This demonstrates effective institutional resilience, suggesting that its research impact is validated by the broader international scientific community rather than through internal 'echo chambers.' A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution successfully avoids the disproportionately high rates that can signal scientific isolation. This commitment to external scrutiny reinforces the credibility of its academic influence, ensuring it is built on global recognition, not endogamous dynamics.
The institution's Z-score is -0.369 (very low risk), while the national context shows a Z-score of 1.099 (medium risk). This significant difference illustrates a pattern of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the problematic publishing dynamics observed in its environment. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, but this institution's score indicates that its researchers exercise excellent judgment in selecting dissemination channels. This protects its reputation and ensures that scientific efforts are not channeled into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, avoiding 'predatory' practices.
The institution registers a Z-score of 0.153, a medium-risk value, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -1.024 (low risk). This indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a medium-risk score outside these fields can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal warrants a review of authorship practices to ensure they reflect genuine intellectual contribution and distinguish necessary massive collaboration from 'honorary' or political inclusions.
The institution has a Z-score of 1.871 (medium risk), a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.292. This value indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. A wide positive gap, as seen here, suggests that while the institution's overall impact is high, the impact of research led by its own authors is comparatively low. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous rather than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from its own internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of 2.082, the institution presents a medium risk level, which is a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.067. This finding suggests the institution is more exposed to this risk than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can point to imbalances between quantity and quality. This indicator serves as an alert to investigate potential risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.250, with both falling in the very low-risk category. This demonstrates a clear integrity synchrony and total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. The very low rate confirms that the institution avoids the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest that arise from excessive dependence on in-house journals. By favoring external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, enhancing its global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.789 signifies a very low risk, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, which has a medium-risk Z-score of 0.720. This stark contrast highlights the institution's success in avoiding practices like 'salami slicing.' A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates the fragmentation of a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's excellent score suggests a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the volume of publications, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
