| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.656 | -0.567 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.531 | -0.207 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.625 | -0.676 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.509 | 1.400 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.033 | -0.348 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.430 | 2.037 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.592 | -0.801 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.409 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.756 |
B P Koirala Institute of Health Sciences presents a profile of pronounced contrasts, with an overall score of 0.320 that reflects a solid foundation in core research integrity offset by significant strategic vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exemplary control over ethical practices, showing exceptionally low-risk signals in multiple affiliations, retractions, institutional self-citation, redundant output, and publishing in its own journals. However, this robust internal governance is challenged by two critical alerts: a high rate of publication in discontinued journals and a substantial dependency on external collaborations for research impact. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's prominent national standing in Medicine, where it ranks 4th in Nepal according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks directly challenge the mission of fostering a "socially accountable health workforce" through "advancement in research and innovation," as publishing in low-quality venues undermines research credibility and dependency on external leadership questions the sustainability of internal innovation. B P Koirala Institute of Health Sciences is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in ethical research conduct as a foundation to urgently address its vulnerabilities in publication strategy and impact autonomy, thereby fully aligning its operational reality with its mission of national health leadership.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.656 that is significantly stronger than the national average of -0.567. This result indicates a robust and transparent system for declaring institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility, the institution's very low rate suggests it effectively avoids any strategic attempts to inflate its contributions or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and honest attribution that surpasses the already low-risk national standard.
With a Z-score of -0.531, the institution shows a near-absence of retracted publications, a figure that compares favorably to the national Z-score of -0.207. This strong performance suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective. While some retractions can reflect the honest correction of unintentional errors, the institution's minimal rate indicates a solid foundation of methodological rigor and a culture of integrity that prevents the systemic failures that can lead to recurring malpractice.
The institution's rate of self-citation is remarkably low (Z-score: -1.625), standing in stark contrast to the national average (Z-score: -0.676). This indicates a high degree of integration with the global scientific community and a healthy reliance on external scrutiny. By avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from disproportionately high self-citation, the institution ensures its academic influence is validated by broad community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics, demonstrating a commitment to objective, externally-vetted impact.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's significant rate of publication in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 3.509. This figure not only represents a high risk in absolute terms but also significantly amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 1.400). This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.033) is within a low-risk range, similar to the national context (Z-score: -0.348). However, the institution's rate is slightly higher than the national average, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this subtle elevation could indicate early signs of author list inflation in other fields. It serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable, distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from potentially 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: 3.430). This value is substantially higher than the already notable national average (Z-score: 2.037), indicating that the institution's situation is an accentuation of a national trend. This wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites urgent reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The rate of hyperprolific authors at the institution is low (Z-score: -0.592), which is consistent with the national environment (Z-score: -0.801). Nevertheless, the institutional score is slightly less negative, suggesting a minor but observable presence of this phenomenon compared to the country average. This represents an incipient vulnerability. While high productivity can evidence leadership, this signal warrants a review to ensure that institutional pressures are not creating imbalances between quantity and quality or encouraging practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The institution shows an exemplary commitment to external validation, with a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268). This practice represents a clear point of preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed at the national level, where there is a medium-level tendency towards this practice (Z-score: 0.409). By avoiding potential conflicts of interest where the institution acts as both judge and party, it ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This strengthens its global visibility and demonstrates a refusal to use internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution demonstrates total operational silence regarding redundant output, with a Z-score of -1.186 that indicates an almost complete absence of this practice. This performance is even stronger than the already very low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.756). This result points to a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity metrics. By avoiding the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units, or 'salami slicing,' the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific record and contributes meaningfully to cumulative knowledge, setting a standard of excellence in research ethics.
