| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.518 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.174 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.918 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.472 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.134 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.004 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.264 | 0.027 |
The University of Missouri, Saint Louis demonstrates a robust and healthy scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.229. This performance is anchored in exceptional strengths in areas such as avoiding institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals, indicating strong internal governance and a commitment to external validation. The institution's research excellence is particularly notable in thematic areas like Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Psychology, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Computer Science, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This solid foundation of integrity directly supports the university's mission to "transform lives" through "exceptional educational, research and engagement experiences." However, to fully align with this mission, attention should be directed toward the moderate risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Gap between total and led impact. Ensuring these practices are transparent and sustainable will prevent any perception that could detract from the institution's genuine capacity for excellence and leadership. Overall, the university is in a strong position, and by proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, it can further enhance its reputation as a leading metropolitan research institution.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.518, which marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.514. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The observed value warrants a review to ensure that collaborative practices are driven by substantive scientific engagement rather than metric-oriented strategies, thereby safeguarding the transparency of institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.174, the institution's performance is in close alignment with the national average of -0.126, indicating a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context and size. Retractions are complex events, and this score does not suggest any systemic failure in quality control. Instead, it reflects a rate of post-publication correction consistent with the national scientific environment, where occasional, honest corrections of unintentional errors are a sign of responsible supervision and a functioning academic process.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary Z-score of -0.918, significantly below the national average of -0.566. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a low-risk national standard, is a strong positive indicator. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's very low rate confirms it successfully avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is robustly validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a culture of broad external engagement and scrutiny.
The institution's Z-score of -0.472 is exceptionally low, even surpassing the strong national average of -0.415. This signals a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, highlighting a proactive and well-informed approach to selecting publication venues. This excellent performance indicates that the institution exercises rigorous due diligence, effectively steering its researchers away from channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. Such diligence protects the university from reputational harm and ensures that research efforts are channeled into credible and impactful outlets.
The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.134, contrasting favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this controlled rate outside those contexts suggests the university effectively discourages author list inflation. This fosters a culture where authorship is tied to meaningful contribution, enhancing individual accountability and the transparency of research collaborations.
With a Z-score of 0.004, the institution shows a medium risk level, but its differentiated management of this issue is evident when compared to the higher national average of 0.284. This indicates the university moderates a risk that is more common across the country. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is overly dependent on external partners where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. The university's significantly smaller gap suggests a healthier balance, pointing toward a more sustainable model where its reputation is built upon strong internal capacity and genuine leadership in its research endeavors.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.275. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a healthy national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score in this area is a strong positive signal, indicating a research culture that prioritizes quality and scientific integrity over sheer volume, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive or honorary authorship.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.268, an excellent result that is even lower than the national average of -0.220. This indicates total operational silence in a risk area where the national environment is already secure. By minimizing reliance on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, reinforcing its reputation for academic rigor.
The institution's Z-score of -0.264 places it in a low-risk category, standing in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.027. This highlights a clear institutional resilience, where effective policies or cultural norms appear to mitigate a risk more prevalent in the broader system. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study to inflate productivity. The university's low score suggests a commendable focus on publishing coherent, significant studies, thereby contributing meaningful knowledge to the scientific record rather than overburdening it with redundant publications.
