Kennesaw State University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Kennesaw State University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.268 indicating performance that is commendably safer than the global baseline. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyper-authored output, and hyperprolific authors, reflecting a culture of transparency and external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national norm in retracted publications, a high exposure to redundant output (salami slicing), and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, Computer Science, and Social Sciences. These areas of excellence align with the university's mission to be a "research-driven" institution fostering "rigor." Nevertheless, the identified medium-risk indicators could challenge this mission; practices like data fragmentation or a high rate of retractions are inconsistent with scientific rigor, while a dependency on external partners for impact may temper the goal of creating "leaders." To fully realize its vision, it is recommended that the university focuses on strengthening its pre-publication quality controls and authorship policies, thereby ensuring its operational practices fully embody its stated values of excellence and leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.358, a figure that signals an exceptionally low risk, particularly when compared to the national average of -0.514. This result demonstrates a clear absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the already low-risk national standard. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's data shows no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting a healthy and straightforward approach to collaborative research credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.192, the institution shows a medium-level risk that moderately deviates from the national context, which maintains a low-risk score of -0.126. This suggests the university is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability. This discrepancy suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing systemic challenges, indicating that a qualitative verification by management is needed to address possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of -0.873 is in the very low-risk category, positioning it favorably against the national low-risk average of -0.566. This lack of risk signals, which is even more silent than the national standard, points to a strong culture of external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's extremely low rate effectively dismisses any concern about scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This performance confirms that the university's academic influence is driven by recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.185 places it in the low-risk category, but this represents a slight divergence from the national landscape, where the average score of -0.415 indicates a near-total absence of this risk. This finding suggests that while the issue is not widespread, the university exhibits minor signals of activity in this area that are not apparent in the rest of the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can pose severe reputational risks, and this minor signal suggests a need to reinforce information literacy and due diligence among researchers in selecting credible dissemination channels to avoid any potential association with low-quality or 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.816, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.594. This showcases a notable institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks related to authorship inflation prevalent in the country. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability. The university’s strong performance here indicates that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby upholding transparency.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.442 reflects a medium-level risk, a value that indicates higher exposure compared to the national average of 0.284. This suggests that the university is more prone to a dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. This finding invites reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics result from its own structural capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could undermine long-term research autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university maintains a Z-score of -0.696, indicating a low-risk and prudent profile that is significantly more rigorous than the national standard (-0.275). This superior performance suggests that the institution manages its authorship and productivity expectations with greater oversight than its peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score in this area effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over scientific integrity, reflecting a healthy balance between quantity and quality.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect alignment with the national average of -0.220, both of which fall into the very low-risk category. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment to external, independent peer review within a national environment of maximum scientific security. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.130 indicates a medium-level risk, showing a higher exposure to this issue than the national average of 0.027. This suggests the university is more prone to practices where a coherent study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This 'salami slicing' can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system. The elevated score serves as an alert to review institutional incentives and publication policies to ensure they prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.