Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhari North Maharashtra University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Kavayitri Bahinabai Chaudhari North Maharashtra University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.062 that reflects a combination of significant strengths and specific areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates robust control over potential risks in multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors, maintaining a profile well below national averages. This operational solidity is complemented by notable thematic strengths, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, where it ranks among the top 10 institutions in India, and a solid position in Chemistry, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, medium-risk indicators related to publication in discontinued journals and redundant output suggest vulnerabilities that could undermine the university's mission to provide "quality higher education" and groom "conscious researchers." These practices, if unaddressed, risk compromising the integrity of the knowledge disseminated for socio-economic development. A strategic focus on enhancing publication channel selection and promoting research of greater substance will be crucial to fully align its scientific practices with its commendable institutional vision.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, with a Z-score of -1.237, which is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.927. This indicates an exceptionally clean operational profile, suggesting that affiliations are managed with clarity and transparency. The data confirms that the university is not engaging in practices like “affiliation shopping” or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, reflecting a strong adherence to legitimate collaborative frameworks.

Rate of Retracted Output

The university demonstrates effective institutional resilience, maintaining a low-risk Z-score of -0.061 in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.279. This suggests that the institution's internal quality control mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic vulnerabilities observed elsewhere in the country. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, the university's low rate indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher score might suggest.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a low-risk Z-score of -0.119, the institution effectively counters the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk level of 0.520. This performance points to strong institutional governance that prevents the development of scientific 'echo chambers'. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the university's low rate demonstrates that its research is validated by the broader scientific community rather than through internal dynamics. This avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirms that its academic influence is based on external recognition, not isolation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

This indicator presents a notable area of concern, as the institution's medium-risk Z-score of 1.500 is significantly higher than the national average of 1.099. This suggests a heightened exposure to questionable publication channels compared to its peers. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination media. This pattern indicates that a concerning portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through outlets that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university maintains a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.322, well below the low-risk national benchmark of -1.024. This demonstrates a consistent and healthy approach to authorship attribution. The data confirms that the institution's research practices are not characterized by author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. This absence of risk signals indicates a clear distinction between necessary collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship, reinforcing transparency in its scientific contributions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution exhibits a very low-risk Z-score of -0.907, indicating a healthy balance between the impact of its overall output and the work where it holds intellectual leadership. This score, which is significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.292, suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not overly dependent on external partners. This strong internal capacity demonstrates that its excellence metrics are a result of genuine research leadership, mitigating any risk of its reputation being tied to collaborations where it does not play a primary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows no signs of risk related to hyperprolific authorship, performing significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.067. This result indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume. The absence of extreme individual publication rates suggests that the university effectively discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, ensuring a healthy balance between productivity and scientific rigor.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.250, reflecting a shared and secure standard in the use of institutional journals. This synchrony indicates that the university's practices are consistent with the national context, avoiding over-reliance on in-house publications. This approach mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific output is validated through independent external peer review and maintains global visibility rather than being channeled through internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university shows a high exposure to this risk, with a medium-risk Z-score of 1.318 that is notably above the national medium-risk average of 0.720. This suggests that the practice of fragmenting research is more prevalent here than in the broader national system. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.