Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal, demonstrates a developing profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.065 reflecting a combination of significant strengths and specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in maintaining very low rates of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and dependency on external leadership for impact, indicating robust internal quality controls and a culture of accountability. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by medium-risk signals in institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's most prominent thematic areas include Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 66th in India), Business, Management and Accounting (140th), and Mathematics (151st). The identified risks, particularly those related to publication channels and authorship practices, directly challenge the institution's mission to uphold "quality and value based teaching & learning of international standard" and to generate "gifted professionals having environmental consciousness and ethics." To fully realize its mission, the university should leverage its foundational strengths to develop targeted policies that address these vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its operational practices are in complete alignment with its stated commitment to excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is -0.323, which represents a slight divergence from the national average of -0.927. This indicates the presence of risk signals related to affiliation practices that are not as prevalent in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a higher-than-context rate can sometimes signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This slight elevation warrants a review to ensure that all declared affiliations are transparent, justified by substantive collaboration, and align with institutional policies, thereby safeguarding the university's academic reputation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.447, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, a figure that stands in stark positive contrast to the national average of 0.279. This performance suggests a state of preventive isolation, where the university effectively insulates itself from the risk dynamics observed at the national level. Such a low rate is a strong indicator of robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms and a healthy integrity culture. It signifies that the institution's processes for ensuring methodological rigor are succeeding in preventing the kinds of errors or malpractice that typically lead to retractions, reflecting a responsible and reliable scientific environment.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of 0.238 for institutional self-citation is notably lower than the national average of 0.520, even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This suggests a capacity for differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common or pronounced across the country. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this controlled rate indicates that the university is less prone to operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' By maintaining a lower tendency toward endogamous impact inflation, the institution demonstrates a healthier balance between internal validation and external scrutiny from the global academic community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.051 is nearly identical to the national average of 1.099, pointing to a systemic pattern in publication practices. This alignment suggests that the university's engagement with discontinued journals reflects a broader, shared challenge within the national academic environment. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of scientific output is being placed in venues that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.191, the institution shows a very low incidence of hyper-authored publications, a rate that is even more conservative than the national low-risk average of -1.024. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. This indicator suggests that the university's authorship practices are well-calibrated, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential author list inflation. The data points to a culture where individual accountability and transparency in authorship are well-maintained, avoiding practices like 'honorary' authorships that can dilute responsibility.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.307, indicating a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This is a sign of strong internal capacity, especially when compared to the national average of -0.292. This performance demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not dependent on external partners. This reflects a sustainable model of excellence, where high-impact research is a direct result of the institution's own intellectual leadership and capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.249 in this area, a figure that marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.067. This suggests a greater sensitivity within the university to risk factors associated with extreme productivity when compared to its national peers. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It is advisable to review authorship policies to ensure that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is almost perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.250. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, reflecting a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. The very low reliance on in-house journals is a positive sign, indicating that the university's scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that research is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.731 for redundant output is virtually identical to the national average of 0.720. This close alignment points to a systemic pattern, suggesting the university's practices in this area reflect a shared norm or challenge at the national level. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system. The score suggests a need to reinforce a culture that prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.