| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.251 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.389 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.145 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.779 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.160 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.480 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.111 | 0.720 |
North-Eastern Hill University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.154 that indicates a performance well-aligned with global standards of responsible research. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors, alongside a strong capacity for intellectual leadership, as evidenced by the minimal gap between its overall impact and that of its self-led research. These areas of excellence suggest a culture that prioritizes accountability and endogenous capacity. The main vulnerabilities, while moderate, are concentrated in post-publication indicators, specifically the rates of retracted output, redundant publications, and output in discontinued journals, which require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research strengths are most prominent in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics; Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology; and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. Although the institution's specific mission was not localized for this report, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally supported by a foundation of scientific integrity. The identified risks, particularly concerning retractions, could challenge this foundation by affecting the perceived reliability of its scientific contributions. By addressing these moderate vulnerabilities, the university can fully leverage its considerable strengths to solidify its reputation as a leader in ethical and impactful research.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -1.251, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.927. This result signals a complete absence of risk related to the strategic inflation of institutional credit. The university's performance surpasses the already secure national benchmark, indicating total operational silence in this area. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's exceptionally low rate confirms that its collaborative practices are transparent and free from any patterns that might suggest "affiliation shopping" or other manipulative behaviors, reflecting a clear and unambiguous representation of its research partnerships.
With a Z-score of 0.389, the institution's rate of retracted output is slightly higher than the national average of 0.279. This suggests that the university is more exposed than its national peers to the factors that can lead to publication retractions. Retractions are complex events, but a rate that trends above the national average serves as an alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to a potential for recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision, warranting immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent further incidents.
The institution exhibits a low rate of self-citation with a Z-score of -0.145, a figure that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.520. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic endogamy prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s controlled rate indicates its research is validated by the broader scientific community rather than within an insular 'echo chamber.' This performance successfully avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is a reflection of external recognition, not just internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 0.779, which, while indicating a medium risk, is considerably lower than the national average of 1.099. This demonstrates differentiated management, as the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common across the country. A high proportion of output in such journals can signal a failure in due diligence when selecting dissemination channels. The university's better-than-average performance suggests a more robust process for vetting publication venues, though the existing medium risk level indicates a continued need for information literacy to fully protect its resources and reputation from predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.160, the institution shows a very low rate of hyper-authored output, positioning it more securely than the low-risk national context (Z-score of -1.024). This absence of risk signals demonstrates a consistent adherence to transparent authorship practices, reinforcing the national standard of integrity. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, high rates in this indicator can suggest author list inflation that dilutes accountability. The university's excellent result confirms its research culture values meaningful contribution over the inclusion of 'honorary' authors, thereby upholding individual responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.480, indicating a very low risk and a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of its researcher-led output. This is significantly stronger than the national average of -0.292. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals and confirms that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and internally driven, not dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where excellence is exogenous. The university's score, however, reflects a robust internal capacity for generating high-impact research, demonstrating true intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.067. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors and reinforces a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to coercive or honorary authorship. The university's performance suggests a healthy and sustainable research environment, free from practices that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university's rate of publication in its own journals is very low and almost perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.250. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, reflecting a shared commitment within the national system to avoid academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By not relying on its in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.111, a figure that, while in the medium-risk category, is substantially lower than the national average of 0.720. This points to a differentiated management approach, where the university is more effectively moderating the risks of 'salami slicing' that are common in its environment. High bibliographic overlap often indicates the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. The university's comparatively low score suggests a stronger institutional emphasis on publishing complete, significant studies, thereby contributing more robustly to the scientific record.
