| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.237 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.338 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.493 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
3.597 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.190 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.936 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.925 | 0.027 |
California State University, Sacramento, presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of 0.252, characterized by exceptional control in publication ethics and content originality. The institution demonstrates clear strengths in areas such as avoiding discontinued journals and preventing redundant publications, indicating a strong foundation of responsible research practices. However, this solid base is contrasted by significant risks concentrated in authorship patterns and impact dependency, particularly concerning hyper-authorship and a notable gap in the impact of institution-led research. These vulnerabilities require strategic attention to ensure they do not undermine the university's mission to "prepare students for leadership, service, and success." The institution's academic strengths, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in fields like Earth and Planetary Sciences, Psychology, Arts and Humanities, and Computer Science, provide a powerful platform for growth. Aligning its collaborative and authorship practices with its demonstrated ethical rigor in other areas will be crucial. By fostering greater intellectual leadership and reinforcing transparent authorship standards, the university can ensure its operational practices fully embody its commitment to excellence and prepare students to lead with integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.237, which represents a moderate deviation from the national standard of -0.514. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate signals a need for internal review. The data indicates a pattern that differs from the national norm, warranting an examination to ensure that these affiliations correspond to substantive collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of the university's collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard (-0.126). Both the university and the country operate within a low-risk context for this indicator, but the institution's even lower score is a positive signal. Retractions are complex events, and this result suggests that the quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This performance indicates a healthy culture of integrity and methodological rigor, minimizing the incidence of systemic errors or potential malpractice that could lead to retractions.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.338, compared to the national average of -0.566. Although both values fall within a low-risk range, the university's score points to an incipient vulnerability, as it shows slightly more activity in this area than its national counterparts. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. However, this subtle divergence warrants monitoring to prevent the development of 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, which could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact rather than recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.493, performing even better than the already low-risk national average of -0.415. This absence of risk signals demonstrates exceptional due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for its research. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university protects its reputation and ensures its scientific output is channeled through credible and enduring media, preventing the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
A Z-score of 3.597 places the institution in a significant risk category, markedly accentuating the vulnerability already present in the national system (0.594). This indicator suggests a systemic issue with authorship practices that requires immediate attention. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are common, such a high score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a critical signal to investigate whether this pattern stems from necessary massive collaboration or from problematic "honorary" or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 2.190 indicates high exposure to this risk, significantly surpassing the national average of 0.284, even though both are in a medium-risk context. This wide positive gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be heavily dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. A high value here warns of a sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own intellectual leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead. Fostering internal capacity to lead high-impact research is essential for long-term scientific autonomy and recognition.
With a Z-score of 0.936, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard (-0.275), indicating a greater sensitivity to risks associated with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It highlights a need to review internal incentive structures to ensure they prioritize scientific integrity over sheer metrics.
The institution demonstrates total operational silence regarding this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even more favorable than the national average of -0.220. This result is a strong positive sign, indicating a firm commitment to external and independent peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the university mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -0.925 signals a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is moderately present at the national level (0.027). This outstanding result shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A very low score in this indicator is a strong sign of research integrity, suggesting that the institution's authors prioritize the publication of significant, coherent studies over the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the scientific record and respects the academic review system.
