| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.473 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.728 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.537 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.498 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
1.547 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.679 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.454 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.110 | -0.155 |
The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, with a global Z-score of -0.164 indicating that its practices are, on the whole, aligned with or superior to national benchmarks. The institution's primary strengths lie in its rigorous pre-publication quality control, as evidenced by exceptionally low rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant risks in collaborative dynamics, particularly a high rate of hyper-authored output and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the School's scientific excellence is concentrated in mission-critical areas, with strong national rankings in Veterinary (29th), Medicine (45th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (46th). These thematic strengths directly support its mission to "reduce the burden of sickness and mortality in disease endemic countries." Nevertheless, the identified risks in authorship and impact dependency could challenge the perceived effectiveness and sustainability of its interventions. To fully embody its commitment to excellence and social responsibility, the institution is encouraged to review its collaboration and authorship policies, ensuring that its impressive research capacity is matched by transparent, accountable, and self-sustaining scientific leadership.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.473 in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, a figure that is notably higher than the national average of 0.597. While both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the School shows a greater propensity for this practice. Multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, but this elevated rate suggests a high exposure to the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to inflate institutional credit. It is advisable to analyze these patterns to ensure they reflect genuine, substantive collaborations rather than practices that could dilute the institution's unique identity and contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.728, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low Rate of Retracted Output, positioning it well below the already low national average of -0.088. This excellent result indicates a robust and effective system of quality control and scientific supervision. While retractions can sometimes signal responsible error correction, such a minimal rate strongly suggests that the institution's pre-publication review mechanisms are successfully preventing systemic failures in methodological rigor or research integrity. This absence of risk signals aligns with the highest national standards and underscores a strong culture of scientific responsibility.
The institution's Z-score for Institutional Self-Citation is -0.537, which, while within a low-risk threshold, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.673. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this minor elevation could be an early signal of a trend towards scientific isolation or an "echo chamber" where work is validated internally. Continued observation is recommended to ensure the institution's academic influence remains driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.498 for its Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, a value that is even lower than the minimal national average of -0.436. This demonstrates a total absence of risk signals in this area, indicating exemplary due diligence in the selection of publication venues. This operational silence confirms that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals that do not meet international ethical standards. Such performance protects the institution from reputational harm and ensures that its scientific resources are channeled toward impactful and credible outlets.
A Z-score of 1.547 for the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output places the institution in a significant risk category, substantially amplifying the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.587). This high value serves as a critical alert for potential author list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain "Big Science" contexts, this pronounced trend requires an urgent internal review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the possibility of "honorary" or political authorship practices. Such inflation can dilute individual accountability and transparency, undermining the integrity of the scientific record and the perceived contribution of each researcher.
The institution shows a Z-score of 0.679 for the gap between its total impact and the impact of research it leads, a figure considerably higher than the national average of 0.147. This indicates a high exposure to the risk of impact dependency. A wide positive gap suggests that while the institution participates in high-impact research, its scientific prestige may be overly reliant on external partners and exogenous leadership. This dynamic signals a potential sustainability risk, prompting reflection on whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual ownership. Strengthening internal leadership in high-impact projects would be a strategic step toward building more structural and sustainable prestige.
With a Z-score of -0.454, the institution maintains a prudent profile regarding the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.155). This low value is a positive indicator, suggesting that the balance between quantity and quality in scientific production is well-managed. It indicates a low risk of practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution fosters an environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is prioritized over the inflation of metrics, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for output in its own journals is -0.268, demonstrating a total and synchronous alignment with the national average of -0.262. This result reflects an environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice ensures that its research is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score for Redundant Output is -0.110. Although this value falls within the low-risk category, it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.155, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This indicator alerts to the practice of "salami slicing," where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. While the current level is not alarming, this slight deviation warrants a review to ensure that institutional incentives favor the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume, thereby preventing practices that could distort the scientific evidence base.
