City University of New York Lehman College

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

City University of New York Lehman College demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile, reflected in its global score of 0.092. The institution exhibits significant strengths in governance, with exceptionally low-risk indicators for Multiple Affiliations, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Output in Institutional Journals, signaling robust operational standards. However, this analysis identifies specific areas of vulnerability requiring strategic attention, primarily centered on authorship practices and impact dependency, with notable alerts for Hyper-Authored Output, the Gap between global and led impact, Hyperprolific Authors, and Redundant Output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the College's primary research strengths lie in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Physics and Astronomy. These areas of scientific excellence are foundational to its mission to be an "intellectual, economic, and cultural center" with a "dynamic research environment." The identified risks, particularly those related to authorship inflation and potential data fragmentation, could undermine the credibility of this dynamic environment and contradict the mission's commitment to excellence and meaningful professional development. To safeguard its reputation and fully realize its vision, it is recommended that the College leverage this report to implement targeted training and policy reviews focused on authorship ethics and publication strategies, thereby reinforcing its commitment to scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a very low incidence of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.063, which is well below the national average of -0.514. This result indicates a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard. The data suggests that the institution's affiliations are managed with clarity and transparency, effectively avoiding practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of sound administrative governance and clear researcher affiliation policies.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution's rate of retracted publications is slightly lower than the national average of -0.126, reflecting a prudent and rigorous approach to research oversight. This demonstrates that the institution's quality control mechanisms are performing more effectively than the national standard. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision in correcting honest errors, this comparatively lower rate suggests that pre-publication review processes are robust, minimizing the occurrence of systemic failures or recurring malpractice and reinforcing the integrity of the institution's scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.170) is within a low-risk threshold but is slightly higher than the national average (Z-score: -0.566). This subtle divergence points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, this minor elevation could be an early sign of a tendency toward scientific isolation. It is advisable to observe this trend to ensure the institution's work continues to receive sufficient external scrutiny and that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community, rather than being shaped primarily by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates an exceptional commitment to quality publishing channels, with a Z-score of -0.508, which is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.415. This signifies a total operational silence in this risk area, indicating that researchers are exercising outstanding due diligence in selecting dissemination media. This practice effectively shields the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with predatory or low-quality journals and ensures that scientific output is channeled through platforms that meet international ethical and quality standards, preventing a waste of institutional resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution presents a Z-score of 2.213 for hyper-authored output, a figure that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.594. This indicates that the institution not only reflects but also amplifies a vulnerability present in the national system. In fields outside of "Big Science," where extensive author lists are not structurally required, such a high score is a critical alert for potential author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal makes it urgent to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and potential "honorary" or political authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.683 in this indicator, showing a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.284. This value points to a significant gap where the institution's overall citation impact is considerably higher than the impact of the research it leads directly. This pattern suggests a potential sustainability risk, as the institution's scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities or a consequence of strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 1.372, the institution shows a greater sensitivity to the risks associated with hyperprolific authorship compared to the national standard (Z-score: -0.275). This moderate deviation from the national norm requires a review of its causes. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This alert points to potential risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score for publications in its own journals is -0.268, which is in total alignment with the national average of -0.220. This integrity synchrony reflects an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. The data confirms that the institution does not excessively depend on its in-house journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production achieves global visibility and standard competitive validation, steering clear of using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's rate of redundant output, or "salami slicing," registers a Z-score of 1.392, indicating a high exposure to this risk factor, well above the national average of 0.027. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices involving significant bibliographic overlap between publications. Such a pattern is a strong alert for data fragmentation, where a single coherent study may be divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.