| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.410 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.399 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.502 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.867 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.307 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.523 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.523 | 0.720 |
Sri Krishnadevaraya University demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. With an overall score of 0.544, the institution exhibits robust control over practices such as multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and redundant publications, where its risk levels are very low and often superior to the national average. These strengths indicate a solid foundation in authorship ethics and publication strategy. However, this positive performance is critically undermined by a significant-risk rating in Retracted Output, which starkly contrasts with the national trend and directly challenges the university's mission to "uphold... value system" and "improve quality of higher education." This specific issue, coupled with medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation and impact dependency, suggests that while certain policies are effective, pre-publication quality control and research validation mechanisms may be failing. The university's strong thematic positioning, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 117th in India), Physics and Astronomy (211th), and Chemistry (235th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a platform for global recognition. To safeguard this potential and fully align with its mission, the university must address the integrity gaps that threaten the credibility of its research. A focused intervention on strengthening peer review and research oversight will be crucial to transforming these vulnerabilities into pillars of institutional excellence and responsibility.
With a Z-score of -1.410, significantly below the national average of -0.927, the institution demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This performance indicates total operational silence regarding practices that could suggest strategic inflation of institutional credit. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate confirms that its policies foster transparent and unambiguous attributions of credit, setting a standard of integrity even higher than the already low-risk national context.
The institution's Z-score of 2.399 is a critical alert, representing a significant risk that sharply accentuates the medium-risk vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score: 0.279). This severe discrepancy suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a rate this far above the average points towards a deeper vulnerability in the institutional integrity culture. This finding indicates a high probability of recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect the university's reputation and scientific credibility.
The university's Z-score of 0.502 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.520, placing both at a medium risk level. This alignment suggests the institution's behavior reflects a systemic pattern common within the country's academic environment. While some self-citation is natural for continuing research lines, this shared tendency can signal the presence of 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. The data warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be shaped more by internal dynamics than by recognition from the global scientific community, a risk that appears to be a shared national characteristic.
With a Z-score of 0.867, the institution exhibits a medium risk level that is notably lower than the national average of 1.099. This indicates a capacity for differentiated management, suggesting that while the university is not entirely immune to the national trend of publishing in questionable venues, its internal processes offer better control and moderation of this risk than its peers. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence, and although the risk here is moderate, this improved performance relative to the country suggests that strengthening information literacy programs could further protect the institution from the reputational damage associated with predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.307 reflects a very low risk, which is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -1.024). This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard for authorship practices. The data suggests that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential for author list inflation. This reflects a culture of transparency and accountability in authorship, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and avoiding practices like 'honorary' authorships.
The university shows a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.523 compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.292. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. The positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige may be overly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, creating a sustainability risk. This reliance on exogenous impact, rather than on its own structural capacity, invites a strategic reflection on how to foster and showcase the excellence generated by its own researchers to ensure long-term scientific autonomy and recognition.
With a Z-score of -1.413 in a country with a low-risk average of -0.067, the institution shows an absence of risk signals that is fully aligned with the national standard. This low-profile consistency indicates a healthy research environment where productivity is balanced with quality. The data confirms the university is not fostering dynamics associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, thereby maintaining a responsible and sustainable approach to academic output.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates a state of integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.250. This total alignment in a very low-risk context shows a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By not relying on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The university exhibits a state of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.523 that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.720. This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' observed in its environment. This strong performance indicates a research culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, effectively protecting the integrity of the scientific record and avoiding an unnecessary burden on the peer review system.
