| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.994 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.216 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.666 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.249 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.051 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.190 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.542 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.960 | 0.720 |
Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology-Srinagar presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall score of 0.060. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over multiple risk indicators, particularly in preventing redundant publications, limiting output in institutional journals, and managing multiple affiliations, often outperforming national averages. This foundation of integrity strongly supports its specialized research strengths, evidenced by its high national rankings in key thematic areas such as Veterinary (ranked 8th in India), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (49th), Medicine (57th), and its core field of Agricultural and Biological Sciences (85th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong performance is critically undermined by two significant vulnerabilities: a high rate of retracted output and a notable gap in the impact of its self-led research. These issues directly challenge the University's mission to produce "excellent human resource" and "innovative technologies," as a high retraction rate questions the reliability of its output, and a dependency on external leadership for impact could hinder its goal of becoming a "leading University." To fully align its operational integrity with its strategic ambitions, it is recommended that the institution leverage its many strengths to conduct a focused intervention on its pre-publication quality control processes and develop strategies to bolster the visibility and impact of its internally-led research.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.994, which is even lower than the national average of -0.927. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk indicator. The complete absence of signals, even when compared to an already low-risk national environment, confirms that the institution's affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed. This low rate demonstrates that affiliations are a legitimate result of organic collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, reinforcing a culture of authentic partnership.
With a Z-score of 1.216, the institution's rate of retractions is a significant concern, starkly contrasting with the national average of 0.279. This indicates that the University is not merely reflecting a national trend but is markedly amplifying a systemic vulnerability. While some retractions can signify responsible error correction, a rate this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This figure alerts to a critical 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 and commitment to excellence.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience with a Z-score of -0.666, which is significantly healthier than the national average of 0.520. This suggests that while the national context presents a medium risk of endogamous citation patterns, the University's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating this trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids the creation of 'echo chambers' and ensures its work is validated by the broader scientific community. This practice confirms that its academic influence is driven by external recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The University shows strong institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.249 in a national context where the risk is medium (Z-score: 1.099). This performance indicates that the institution's control mechanisms serve as an effective filter against the systemic national risk of publishing in low-quality venues. A low proportion of output in such journals demonstrates robust due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects the institution from severe reputational harm and shows a commitment to channeling its scientific production through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, avoiding predatory practices.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -1.051, slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -1.024. Both scores fall within a low-risk range, but the University's marginally lower value suggests a well-managed approach to authorship. This indicates that authorship lists are generally a reflection of legitimate collaboration rather than inflation. By avoiding patterns of hyper-authorship outside of "Big Science" contexts, the institution promotes individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
A moderate deviation from the national norm is observed, with the institution's Z-score at 1.190 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.292. This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to risks related to research dependency. 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 a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.542, indicating more rigorous management of this indicator than the national standard (-0.067). While both are in a low-risk category, the University's lower score points to a healthy balance between quantity and quality in its researchers' output. This suggests an environment that discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.250, reflecting total alignment within an environment of maximum scientific security. This extremely low rate of publication in its own journals is a strong positive signal. It demonstrates a clear commitment to independent, external peer review and mitigates any potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, avoiding the risk of academic endogamy.
The institution achieves a state of preventive isolation, with a Z-score of -0.960 in a national context showing a medium risk (Z-score: 0.720). This outstanding result indicates that the University does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A very low value in this indicator signals a strong institutional culture that discourages 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications. This commitment to publishing complete, coherent studies upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of output volume.
