University of New Orleans

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of New Orleans demonstrates a robust and generally positive scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.138 indicating performance that is slightly better than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of output in discontinued journals and multiple affiliations, alongside a commendable resilience against national trends in hyper-authorship and impact dependency. These positive indicators are counterbalanced by two areas of moderate concern: the rate of hyperprolific authors and a notable signal for redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's research excellence is particularly prominent in the fields of Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; and Earth and Planetary Sciences. The identified risks, particularly those related to publication practices, present a potential conflict with the university's mission to provide "educational excellence" and "advance shared knowledge." Practices that prioritize volume over substance could undermine the integrity of this mission. By leveraging its clear strengths in governance and research ethics, the University of New Orleans is well-positioned to address these specific vulnerabilities and further solidify its role as a world-class urban research university.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.224, which is significantly below the United States' national average of -0.514. This result demonstrates a clear and consistent low-risk profile that not only aligns with the national standard but surpasses it. The absence of any significant risk signals in this area suggests that the university's policies and researcher practices regarding affiliations are transparent and well-governed. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's very low rate confirms that there are no indicators of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting a strong commitment to straightforward academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.202, the institution's rate of retracted output is slightly higher than the national average of -0.126, though both remain within a low-risk threshold. This minor difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating that the university shows faint signals of activity in this area that warrant observation before they escalate. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture. In this case, the signal is minor but serves as a reminder of the importance of robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms to prevent both unintentional errors and potential malpractice.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university maintains a Z-score of -0.776 for institutional self-citation, a figure that indicates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.566. This demonstrates that the institution manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard within the same low-risk category. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, the university's lower-than-average score confirms that it successfully avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamously inflating its impact, ensuring its work is validated by the broader external scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score in this indicator is -0.508, reflecting a near-total absence of risk signals and outperforming the already very low national average of -0.415. This operational silence indicates an exemplary due diligence process in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals can be a critical alert for reputational risk, suggesting that production is channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. The university's outstanding performance here demonstrates a strong institutional capacity for information literacy, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality practices and ensuring research resources are well-spent.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.103, the institution displays a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the wider national context. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high Z-score outside these fields can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's low score suggests it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, maintaining transparency in its collaborative research.

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

The university shows a Z-score of -0.176, a low-risk value that indicates strong internal capacity, especially when compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.284. This gap highlights the institution's resilience and its ability to generate high-impact research under its own intellectual leadership. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structural. The university's negative (and therefore healthy) score suggests that its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities, avoiding the sustainability risk associated with strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.502, placing it in a medium-risk category and marking a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.275. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated 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—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and require management review.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.220, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's very low score confirms that it relies on external, competitive validation for its research, ensuring its work achieves global visibility and is not channeled through internal 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The university's Z-score for redundant output is 2.522, a medium-risk signal that indicates high exposure to this practice, especially when compared to the much lower national average of 0.027 within the same risk category. This suggests the institution is significantly more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its environment. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This high value is a critical alert that such practices may be distorting the scientific evidence and prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, warranting a thorough review of publication guidelines.