| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.084 | 0.431 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | -0.156 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.059 | -0.509 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.450 | -0.380 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.409 | 0.181 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.247 | -0.016 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.345 | -0.414 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.051 | -0.114 |
Dublin City University demonstrates an outstanding scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.264 indicating robust governance and a culture of responsible research. The institution exhibits very low or low risk across all nine indicators, showcasing particular strengths in its near-zero rates of publication in discontinued journals and institutional journals. This performance is especially notable where the university shows resilience against national trends, such as in the rates of multiple affiliations and hyper-authored output, which are moderate risks for Ireland but are well-controlled within the institution. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this operational excellence underpins the university's strong thematic leadership, with top-tier national rankings in areas such as Environmental Science (2nd), Arts and Humanities (3rd), Business, Management and Accounting (3rd), and Computer Science (3rd). This strong integrity framework is fundamental to the university's mission "to transform lives and societies," as trustworthy and high-quality research is the bedrock of meaningful innovation and societal engagement. To maintain this exemplary standing, the university is encouraged to proactively monitor the few indicators showing minor incipient vulnerabilities, ensuring its continued leadership in both academic excellence and scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.084, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.431. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university successfully mitigates systemic risks that appear more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's controlled rate suggests that its policies effectively prevent strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint in contrast to the broader national context.
With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution's rate of retracted output is even lower than the already low national average of -0.156. This reflects a prudent and rigorous profile, indicating that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are exceptionally robust. A rate significantly lower than the national standard suggests that processes to ensure methodological rigor and prevent malpractice are not just effective but exemplary, minimizing the occurrence of errors that could lead to retractions and reinforcing a strong culture of integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.059, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.509. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. However, this minor elevation compared to the national baseline suggests a need to ensure that the institution's work consistently receives sufficient external scrutiny, thereby avoiding the potential for 'echo chambers' and confirming that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.450, an exceptionally low value that is even more favorable than the national average of -0.380. This signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, highlighting an exemplary due diligence process in selecting publication venues. This performance indicates that the university's researchers are well-informed and effectively avoid channeling their work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, completely mitigating any reputational risk associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution maintains a low rate of hyper-authored publications, standing in stark contrast to the moderate-risk national average of 0.181. This gap showcases strong institutional resilience, suggesting that the university's governance effectively filters out national tendencies toward author list inflation. The data indicates a clear ability to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.247 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.016, indicating a prudent and sustainable approach to building academic impact. This smaller gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is firmly rooted in its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being overly dependent on external partners. This profile is more balanced and structurally sound than the national standard, reflecting a research ecosystem where excellence is generated from within and not just imported through collaboration.
The institution's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is -0.345, a low-risk value that is nonetheless slightly higher than the national average of -0.414. This minor deviation points to an incipient vulnerability that merits monitoring. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can strain the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This signal, though small, suggests a need to ensure institutional culture continues to value quality over sheer quantity, safeguarding against potential risks like coercive authorship or the dilution of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, with both positioned at a very low-risk level. This perfect alignment demonstrates integrity synchrony with a national environment where academic endogamy is not a concern. The score confirms that the university avoids any potential conflicts of interest by not relying on in-house journals, instead ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice maximizes global visibility and validates research through standard competitive channels.
With a Z-score of -0.051, the institution's rate of redundant output is low but slightly exceeds the national average of -0.114. This indicates an incipient vulnerability that warrants attention. While citing previous work is essential, this signal suggests a potential tendency toward data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' that is slightly more pronounced than in the rest of the country. It serves as a constructive alert to reinforce best practices and ensure that all publications contribute significant new knowledge, thereby prioritizing substance over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
