| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.185 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.756 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.915 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.484 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.719 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.036 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.570 | 0.027 |
The University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.265 indicating performance well above the benchmark for good governance. The institution exhibits exceptional control across a majority of integrity indicators, particularly in managing affiliations, self-citation, author productivity, and the selection of publication venues, which points to a deeply embedded culture of responsible research. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two areas that warrant strategic attention: a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Retracted Output and a moderate 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 academic strengths are most prominent in Business, Management and Accounting; Earth and Planetary Sciences; and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risk concerning retracted publications could challenge a standard mission of academic excellence, and the impact gap highlights a need to foster greater internal leadership to ensure long-term, sustainable prestige. The University is advised to leverage its considerable integrity strengths as a reputational asset while proactively investigating the causes of its retraction rate and implementing strategies to bolster the impact of its home-led research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.185 is significantly lower than the United States average of -0.514, demonstrating a clear and conservative approach to author affiliations. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals that aligns with, and even exceeds, the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's data confirms that its practices are transparent and avoid any perception of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 0.756, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.126, indicating greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more frequently than expected, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution's Z-score of -0.915 is well below the national average of -0.566, reflecting a healthy pattern of external engagement and validation. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the institution's work is well-integrated into the broader scientific community, successfully avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from disproportionately high rates of self-citation. The absence of risk signals confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.484 is even lower than the already low national average of -0.415, signifying a total operational silence on this risk indicator. This performance demonstrates exceptional due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. It confirms that the institution's scientific production is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, effectively protecting it from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.719 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.594, which trends towards medium risk. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk observed across the country. The institution's low score indicates a culture that values clear accountability and transparency in authorship, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship that can dilute individual responsibility.
While both the institution (Z-score: 0.036) and the country (Z-score: 0.284) register a medium-risk signal, the institution demonstrates differentiated management of this issue with a significantly smaller gap. This suggests a more balanced contribution to collaborative impact. However, the positive value still suggests that some of its scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, signaling a potential sustainability risk.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.275, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolificacy. This low-profile consistency with a secure national environment underscores a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. The data indicates that authorship is assigned based on meaningful intellectual contribution, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the inflation of publication counts at the expense of the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is slightly better than the national average of -0.220, indicating a total operational silence regarding this risk. This performance demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.570 signals a complete absence of risk, which stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.027). This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics present in its wider environment. The data strongly suggests a culture that values significant, coherent contributions over the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence.
