| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.548 | 0.275 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.418 | -0.080 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.497 | 0.381 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.915 | 0.314 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.193 | -0.002 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.044 | 1.641 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.684 | -0.303 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.148 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.120 | -0.248 |
Caraga State University presents a profile of notable strengths in research governance alongside specific, high-priority areas for strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.575, the institution demonstrates exceptional performance in maintaining intellectual leadership, avoiding academic endogamy, and ensuring transparent authorship practices. These areas of very low risk, particularly the strong positive impact of institution-led research, stand in stark contrast to national trends and signal a robust internal capacity for sustainable scientific development. However, this solid foundation is challenged by a significant-risk signal in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which requires immediate attention, and medium-risk levels in multiple affiliations, retractions, and institutional self-citation that suggest a need for enhanced quality control and citation protocols. The University's recognized thematic strengths, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are concentrated in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Environmental Science. The critical risk identified in publication channel selection directly threatens the credibility and long-term impact of this valuable research, potentially undermining any institutional mission geared towards excellence and social responsibility. By addressing this vulnerability and reinforcing its areas of proven integrity, Caraga State University can fully leverage its research strengths, ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.548, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.275. This result indicates that while a medium-risk level for this indicator is a shared pattern at the national level, the University shows a greater propensity for this behavior. This high exposure suggests that the institution is more prone to practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” While many multiple affiliations are legitimate, the heightened rate here warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that all affiliations declared by researchers are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration, thereby safeguarding the university's academic reputation.
With a Z-score of 0.418, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which registers a low-risk score of -0.080. This discrepancy suggests the University has a greater sensitivity to factors that can lead to publication retractions compared to its national peers. A rate significantly higher than the average can be an alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This situation calls for a qualitative review by management to understand the root causes, distinguishing between honest corrections and potential recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that could compromise the institution's culture of integrity.
The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 1.497, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.381. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk band, the University's score indicates a much higher exposure to this risk. This dynamic suggests that the institution is more prone to operating within a scientific 'echo chamber,' where its work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Such a high rate warns of the potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's perceived academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by genuine recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 2.915 represents a significant-risk outlier, starkly contrasting with the country's medium-risk average of 0.314. This finding indicates that the University is not merely reflecting a national vulnerability but is actively amplifying it to a critical level. This constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Publishing a significant portion of scientific output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to implement robust information literacy programs to prevent the waste of research resources on 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
Caraga State University demonstrates an exceptionally strong performance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.193, indicating a very low risk that is even more favorable than the country's already low-risk average of -0.002. This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals that aligns perfectly with, and even improves upon, the national standard. It suggests that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively avoiding the risks of author list inflation and ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately, thereby strengthening individual accountability.
The institution shows a Z-score of -2.044, a result that signals very low risk and represents a profound strength, especially when compared to the national medium-risk average of 1.641. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the University does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. A negative score indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is higher than its overall collaborative impact, signaling strong, sustainable internal capacity and true intellectual leadership. Unlike the national trend, where prestige may be dependent on external partners, this result confirms that the University's excellence is structural and driven by its own researchers.
With a Z-score of -0.684, the institution maintains a prudent, low-risk profile that is more rigorous than the national standard of -0.303. This indicates that the University's processes effectively promote a healthy balance between research quantity and quality. By managing this indicator more strictly than its peers, the institution successfully mitigates the risks associated with hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, fostering an environment where meaningful intellectual contribution is valued.
The University's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, a stark and positive contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.148. This is a clear example of preventive isolation, where the institution actively avoids the risk of academic endogamy that is more common nationally. By not depending on its own journals for publication, the University demonstrates a strong commitment to seeking independent, external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its scientific output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score in this low-risk category is -0.120, which, while still low, is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.248. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk is well-controlled and within normal parameters, the data suggests the presence of faint signals related to data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' that are slightly more pronounced than in the broader national context. This observation does not constitute an alarm but warrants preventive review to ensure that publication practices continue to prioritize significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of output volume.
