University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of -0.509. The institution exhibits very low to low risk levels across eight of the nine indicators analyzed, with particular strengths in maintaining transparent affiliation practices, avoiding predatory publishing channels, and preventing authorship inflation. This strong foundation of ethical research practice directly supports the institution's mission to provide a "high-quality liberal education" and contribute to a "more sustainable future." The university's academic strengths are evident in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, with notable contributions in Arts and Humanities, Business, Management and Accounting, Psychology, and Social Sciences. However, a medium-risk signal in the gap between its total research impact and the impact of its leader-authored work suggests a potential over-reliance on external collaborations. This dependency could challenge the long-term goal of preparing "successful leaders" by limiting opportunities for internal intellectual leadership. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, the institution is encouraged to leverage its outstanding integrity culture as a cornerstone for building greater internal research capacity and leadership, thereby ensuring its long-term scientific sustainability and impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -1.398, significantly below the national average of -0.514, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low and transparent rate of multiple affiliations. This result indicates a clear and consistent approach to authorship credit that aligns with the national standard for integrity. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's very low score confirms the absence of any signals related to strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate its institutional credit, reflecting a culture of straightforward and honest academic practice.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's rate of retracted publications, with a Z-score of -0.146, is statistically normal and closely aligned with the national average of -0.126. This parity suggests that the institution's performance is as expected for its context and size, with no indication of systemic failures in its pre-publication quality control mechanisms. Retractions are complex events, and this level reflects a healthy scientific process where corrections are made responsibly, rather than a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

At a Z-score of -0.427, the institution's rate of self-citation is slightly higher than the national average of -0.566, although it remains within a low-risk threshold. This minor deviation points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation before it escalates. A certain degree of self-citation is natural for developing research lines, but this subtle elevation could be an early sign of an "echo chamber" dynamic. Continued monitoring is advised to ensure the institution's work receives ample external scrutiny, thereby avoiding any risk of endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution exhibits an exemplary record in avoiding discontinued journals, with a Z-score of -0.545 that is even more favorable than the very low national average of -0.415. This signifies a complete absence of risk signals in this area, suggesting that robust due diligence is consistently applied when selecting publication venues. This practice effectively shields the institution from the reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing and ensures that research efforts are channeled through credible and enduring outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution displays strong institutional resilience against the national trend of hyper-authorship, with its Z-score of -0.629 standing in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.594. This suggests that internal governance and control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk that is more prevalent in the wider system. The institution's low rate indicates a culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like honorary authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.

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

With a Z-score of 0.588, which is considerably higher than the national average of 0.284, the institution shows a high exposure to dependency risk. This score reveals a significant gap, where the impact of its overall scientific output is much higher than the impact of the research it leads. This disparity signals a potential risk to sustainability, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be more reliant on its role in external collaborations than on its own structural capacity. This finding calls for a strategic review to determine if its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capabilities or from advantageous positioning in partnerships where it does not hold intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution maintains a profile of low-profile consistency regarding hyperprolific authors, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 compared to the national average of -0.275. This near-total absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with national integrity standards. The data strongly indicates a healthy institutional balance between research quantity and quality, showing no evidence of the pressures that can lead to coercive authorship or the prioritization of publication volume over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a complete absence of risk related to publishing in its own journals, performing even better than the very low national average of -0.220. This confirms that the institution is not dependent on in-house publication channels, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest or academic endogamy. By prioritizing independent, external peer review for its research, the institution ensures its work is validated against global standards and maximizes its international visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution shows a remarkable degree of preventive isolation from the national trend of redundant publications. Its very low Z-score of -0.495 contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk average of 0.027, indicating that it does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. This result points to a strong institutional culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics through practices like "salami slicing," thus protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.