City University of New York, Queens College

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

City University of New York, Queens College, demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.442 that significantly outperforms many of its national peers. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in discontinued journals, indicating a culture of external validation and responsible authorship. The main area for monitoring is a moderate gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership, though this is managed more effectively than the national average. This strong integrity foundation directly supports the institution's mission to provide a "rigorous education" and foster "excellence," as it ensures the knowledge being expanded is transparent, reliable, and ethically produced. The college's academic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in fields such as Psychology, Arts and Humanities, Medicine, and Earth and Planetary Sciences, are built upon this solid ethical ground. To further enhance its standing, the institution is advised to leverage its high integrity standards as a strategic asset while continuing to nurture its internal research leadership capabilities, thereby ensuring its commitment to producing "leading citizens" is backed by world-class, responsible science.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -0.640, the institution displays a more prudent approach to multiple affiliations compared to the national average of -0.514. This suggests that its processes are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's controlled rate indicates a healthy management of this practice, effectively avoiding signals of “affiliation shopping” or strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.024, slightly higher than the national benchmark of -0.126. This minimal deviation points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that while the overall rate is low, there are signals that warrant review before they escalate. Retractions are complex events, but a rate that edges above the national norm, even if low, can be an early indicator that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may have room for improvement. It serves as a prompt for a qualitative review to ensure that institutional supervision remains robust and proactive.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.062, far below the national average of -0.566. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard of open scientific dialogue. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines; however, the institution's very low value is a strong indicator of robust external validation and integration within the global scientific community, steering clear of 'echo chambers' and ensuring its academic influence is earned through broad recognition rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

At a Z-score of -0.518, the institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is negligible, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.415. This represents a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, indicating exceptional due diligence in the selection of publication venues. This practice protects the institution from severe reputational risks and demonstrates a strong commitment to channeling its scientific output through high-quality, ethically sound media, avoiding any association with 'predatory' or substandard journals.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution shows remarkable resilience against the national trend of hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of -0.669 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.594. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the wider environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', the institution's low rate outside these contexts indicates a culture that values clear accountability and discourages practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, ensuring that credit is assigned transparently and responsibly.

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

The institution reports a Z-score of 0.110 for the gap between its total impact and the impact of its led research, indicating a more moderate risk compared to the national average of 0.284. This demonstrates differentiated management, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is overly dependent on external partners. The institution's contained value suggests a healthier balance, reflecting a growing internal capacity for intellectual leadership, even as it continues to benefit from strategic collaborations.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship, a figure significantly lower than the national average of -0.275. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes research quality over sheer volume. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's excellent result in this area indicates a healthy balance, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the dilution of scientific integrity in favor of metric inflation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score for output in its own journals is -0.268, which is in close alignment with the national average of -0.220. This indicates a state of integrity synchrony, where the institution's practices are perfectly aligned with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. By not over-relying on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and competes for visibility on a global stage.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -0.359 for redundant output, effectively countering the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (0.027). This suggests that internal policies or academic culture act as a buffer against this systemic vulnerability. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—a practice that artificially inflates productivity. The institution's low score signals a commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies rather than fragmenting work into minimal units, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.