| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.625 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.597 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.261 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.072 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.181 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.793 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
Veer Narmad South Gujarat University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.669. The institution exhibits exceptional strength in maintaining low-risk practices, with standout performance in minimizing retracted output, redundant publications, and dependency on external collaborations for impact. This solid foundation of ethical research conduct strongly supports its mission "to be an institute of excellence." The university's recognized output in key thematic areas, such as Chemistry and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, is built upon this reliable base. However, a notable vulnerability exists in the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, which is higher than the national average. This trend, if unaddressed, could challenge the mission's goal of being "sensitive to... changing global realities" by suggesting a degree of scientific isolation. To fully realize its vision of excellence, the university is encouraged to leverage its considerable strengths in research integrity to foster greater external validation and global engagement, thereby ensuring its impact is both internally generated and internationally recognized.
The institution exhibits an exemplary standard of transparency in affiliation, with a Z-score of -1.625, which is even lower than the national average of -0.927. This signifies a complete absence of risk signals in this area. The data suggests that the university's crediting practices are clear and unambiguous, showing no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.597, the institution demonstrates a strong preventive culture that insulates it from the risk of retractions, a vulnerability more present at the national level (Z-score: 0.279). This very low rate indicates that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. Unlike the broader environment, there are no systemic signals of failing integrity or lack of methodological rigor, suggesting a robust and responsible research culture.
The university's rate of institutional self-citation presents a notable area for strategic review, with a Z-score of 1.261 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.520. This indicates a greater exposure to this particular risk compared to its national peers. While some self-citation reflects the natural progression of research, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution demonstrates commendable resilience and diligence in its choice of publication venues. Its low Z-score of -0.072 contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 1.099, indicating that its control mechanisms effectively mitigate the country's systemic risks. This performance suggests that the university has a strong process for vetting journals, successfully protecting its scientific production from being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and thus avoiding the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices.
The university's authorship practices are consistent with a low-risk profile, as shown by its Z-score of -1.181, which aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -1.024). This absence of risk signals indicates that the institution's research culture does not show signs of author list inflation. This suggests a healthy environment where authorship is granted based on meaningful contribution, maintaining transparency and individual accountability in line with responsible conduct.
The institution demonstrates remarkable scientific autonomy and internal capacity, with a Z-score of -1.793, far below the national average of -0.292. This very low score indicates a negligible gap between the impact of its overall output and the impact of research led by its own authors. This absence of risk signals strongly suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon genuine internal capabilities rather than being dependent on strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The university maintains a healthy research environment free from signals of hyperprolific authorship, with a Z-score of -1.413 compared to the national score of -0.067. This low-profile consistency indicates that the institutional culture prioritizes quality over sheer volume. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a balanced approach to productivity, avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's policy regarding its own journals is in perfect synchrony with the secure national standard. Its Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the country's average of -0.250, demonstrating a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This indicates that there is no excessive dependence on in-house journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and ensuring that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review for validation, rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
The university effectively isolates itself from the national tendency toward redundant publications. Its very low Z-score of -1.186 is a clear positive outlier when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.720. This preventive isolation suggests a strong institutional policy against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' The focus appears to be on producing coherent studies with significant new knowledge, rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics, which upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
