| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.267 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.080 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.090 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.376 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.340 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.341 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.101 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.274 | 0.027 |
The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai demonstrates a robust and generally well-managed scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.027. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in areas that underscore a commitment to external validation and rigorous peer review, including an extremely low Rate of Institutional Self-Citation and minimal publication in its own journals. Furthermore, it shows commendable resilience against national trends in redundant publication. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by significant alerts in authorship practices, specifically a high Rate of Hyper-Authored Output and a notable presence of hyperprolific authors. These vulnerabilities, alongside a moderate dependency on external collaborations for impact, require strategic attention. This profile is set against a backdrop of world-class research performance, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing the institution in the global elite in key areas such as Medicine (Top 50), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (Top 60), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (Top 70). To fully align with its mission of "clinical excellence" and "scholarly inquiry," it is crucial to address the authorship-related risks, as they could undermine the transparency and accountability inherent in high-quality research. By leveraging its clear operational strengths to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, the institution can further solidify its position as a global leader in both scientific output and ethical conduct.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.267, slightly higher than the national average of -0.514, though both fall within a low-risk range. This indicates an incipient vulnerability, suggesting that while the institution's practices are broadly aligned with national norms, it shows minor signals that warrant review before they escalate. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, it is prudent to ensure that this slight upward trend does not signal emerging attempts to strategically inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.080, the institution's rate of retractions is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.126. This alignment suggests that the frequency of retractions is as expected for an institution of its size and context. Retractions are complex events, and the current rate does not indicate a systemic failure in pre-publication quality control. Instead, it reflects a standard operational dynamic within a healthy research environment where corrections are made responsibly as part of the scientific process.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally strong profile with a Z-score of -1.090, significantly below the country's low-risk average of -0.566. This low-profile consistency signals an exemplary commitment to external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s very low rate indicates it actively avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive internal validation. This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is driven by genuine recognition from the global scientific community rather than being inflated by endogamous citation dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.376 is in the very low-risk category, closely mirroring the national average of -0.415. While both scores indicate that publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards is not a concern, the institution's score is marginally higher, representing a minimal residual noise in an otherwise inert environment. This is not an alert but a statistical nuance, confirming that the institution exercises excellent due diligence in selecting high-quality dissemination channels for its research, thereby protecting its reputational integrity.
A significant risk is identified in this area, with the institution's Z-score of 1.340 marking a significant risk level, substantially amplifying the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.594). This suggests the institution is particularly susceptible to author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this high value outside of those norms is a critical alert. It points to a potential dilution of individual accountability and transparency, raising concerns about 'honorary' or political authorship practices that must be investigated to ensure every credited author has made a meaningful contribution.
The institution's Z-score of 0.341 is in the medium-risk range and slightly exceeds the national average of 0.284. This indicates a high exposure to risks associated with impact dependency. The positive gap suggests that a significant portion of the institution's citation impact comes from publications where it does not hold a leadership role. This pattern, more pronounced than in the rest of the country, signals a potential sustainability risk where scientific prestige may be overly reliant on external partners rather than on structural, internal capacity. It invites a strategic reflection on fostering intellectual leadership to ensure long-term academic sovereignty.
A moderate deviation from the national standard is observed, with the institution showing a medium-risk Z-score of 1.101, while the country maintains a low-risk average of -0.275. This discrepancy suggests the institution is more sensitive to risk factors related to extreme productivity. The presence of authors publishing at rates that challenge the plausible limits of meaningful intellectual contribution is a warning signal. This indicator points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, alerting to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is even lower than the country's very low-risk average of -0.220. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a robust commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its scientific output consistently meets the competitive validation standards of the international community.
The institution demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.274 in a national context where this practice is a medium-level risk (0.027). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic pressures that can lead to data fragmentation. The low rate of redundant output indicates a culture that prioritizes the publication of significant, coherent studies over the artificial inflation of productivity through 'salami slicing.' This practice strengthens the scientific record and shows respect for the academic review system by focusing on substance over volume.
