City University of New York, College of Staten Island

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The City University of New York, College of Staten Island, demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.472 indicating performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship, multiple affiliations, and institutional self-citation, alongside a commendable resilience to national trends in hyper-authorship and impact dependency. This foundation of integrity is, however, challenged by a notable medium-risk signal in the Rate of Redundant Output, which is significantly higher than the national average and represents the main area for strategic review. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the College's academic strengths are most prominent in Psychology, Mathematics, and Computer Science. The institution's commitment to the "highest standards in... research, scholarship, and service" and "access to excellence" is well-supported by its overall low-risk profile. Nevertheless, the elevated rate of redundant output could be perceived as conflicting with these values, as it may prioritize publication volume over the substantive scholarly contributions that define true excellence. To fully align practice with its mission, it is recommended that the institution undertakes a focused review of its publication and research evaluation policies to ensure that incentives favor impactful, high-quality scholarship over fragmented productivity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a very low risk profile with a Z-score of -1.153, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.514. This excellent result demonstrates a clear and stable affiliation policy that aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard. The absence of risk signals suggests that affiliations are managed with high transparency. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's low rate confirms it effectively avoids strategic practices like "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (-0.126). This prudent positioning suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are particularly effective. A rate significantly lower than its peers indicates a strong integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that could lead to a higher volume of retractions, reinforcing the reliability of its scientific output.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.870 signifies an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, positioning it well below the national average of -0.566. This performance indicates a strong integration with the global scientific community and an absence of concerning scientific isolation. By avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from disproportionately citing its own work, the institution ensures its academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.545 that is even lower than the already strong national average of -0.415. This near-total absence of publications in discontinued journals points to an exemplary due diligence process for selecting dissemination channels. This careful approach effectively shields the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with "predatory" or low-quality publishing and ensures that research efforts are channeled through credible and impactful venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.971, the institution shows remarkable resilience against the national trend, where the average score is 0.594. While the country shows a medium-risk signal, the institution's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate this systemic risk. This indicates a culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and problematic practices like "honorary" or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.213 reflects a low-risk profile, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.284, which sits in the medium-risk category. This demonstrates institutional resilience and a strong degree of scientific autonomy. The minimal gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This healthy dynamic mitigates the sustainability risk of having an impact that is largely exogenous and not structurally embedded.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-absence of hyperprolific authors when compared to the national average of -0.275. This result aligns perfectly with an environment of low national risk and points to a healthy institutional culture that values quality over sheer quantity. The data suggests a strong balance is maintained, avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in perfect synchrony with the national average (-0.220), both of which are in the very low-risk category. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security demonstrates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 2.008 places it in the medium-risk category and indicates high exposure to this issue, especially when compared to the near-zero national average of 0.027. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices of data fragmentation or "salami slicing." A high value alerts to the risk that coherent studies may be divided into "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific record and warrants a review to ensure that the institutional focus remains on generating significant new knowledge rather than simply increasing publication volume.