| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.043 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.174 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.228 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.277 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.088 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.558 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.148 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.198 | 0.027 |
The University of Missouri-Kansas City presents a robust and secure scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.173 indicating performance that is stable and aligned with global standards. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength in areas that promote external validation and academic independence, particularly with very low rates of Institutional Self-Citation and Output in Institutional Journals. However, areas requiring strategic attention include the Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership, and the Rate of Redundant Output, where risk signals are more pronounced than the national average. These findings are contextualized by the University's strong national standing in key disciplines such as Dentistry, Computer Science, Engineering, and Medicine, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The institution's mission to deliver "transformational impact" and "knowledge of public value" is well-supported by its overall low-risk profile. Nevertheless, the identified vulnerabilities, such as a potential reliance on external partners for impact and practices that may favor publication volume over substance, could challenge the long-term sustainability of this mission. Upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity is crucial to ensuring that the pursuit of cultural, social, and economic prosperity is built on a foundation of genuine and verifiable excellence. The University is well-positioned to leverage its strengths to address these moderate risks, reinforcing its commitment to both impactful research and unimpeachable scientific practice through targeted policies on authorship and research leadership.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution's rate of multiple affiliations is slightly higher than the national average of -0.514, indicating an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor elevation compared to the national baseline suggests a need to ensure that these practices are consistently driven by genuine collaboration. Monitoring this trend will help confirm that affiliations are a reflection of substantive partnerships rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its management of post-publication corrections, with a Z-score of -0.174 that is lower than the national average of -0.126. This indicates that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes resulting from the honest correction of errors, which signifies responsible oversight. This favorable score suggests that the institution maintains a healthy culture of integrity and methodological rigor, effectively minimizing the systemic failures that can lead to a high rate of retractions.
The University exhibits an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation (Z-score: -1.228) that is even stronger than the already low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.566). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong outward-looking research culture, confirming that the institution successfully avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The absence of risk signals in this area affirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global community rather than through internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy and robust integration into international scientific discourse.
A slight divergence from the national trend is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score of -0.277 showing minor risk signals in an area where the country as a whole is virtually inert (Z-score: -0.415). Although the risk level is low, this score points to a marginal but noticeable presence in journals that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This divergence constitutes a minor alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels and highlights an opportunity to reinforce information literacy among researchers to completely avoid reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management of hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of 0.088 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.594. This indicates that the University effectively moderates a risk that is more common in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this controlled rate suggests a culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship practices. This approach helps preserve individual accountability and transparency in crediting contributions.
The University shows high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.558 that is notably higher than the national average of 0.284. This indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to having a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds a leadership role. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that a portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This invites strategic reflection on how to bolster internal capacity to ensure its excellence metrics are a direct result of its own intellectual leadership.
An incipient vulnerability is noted in the rate of hyperprolific authors, where the institution's Z-score of -0.148 is slightly higher than the national standard of -0.275. While the overall risk remains low, this signal warrants review. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution per article. This slight elevation suggests a potential need to examine authorship practices to mitigate risks such as imbalances between quantity and quality or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's practices show total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.220. This complete absence of risk signals demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the University ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, which reinforces the credibility and global reach of its research findings.
A high exposure to this risk is evident, as the institution's Z-score of 0.198 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.027. This alert suggests a greater tendency toward publishing practices where bibliographic overlap between publications is unusually high. Such a pattern can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence, and the high score suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the dissemination of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer publication volume.
