Jagannath University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Jagannath University presents a profile of notable contrasts, with an overall risk score of 1.803 indicating a medium level of exposure. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths and robust internal controls in key areas of scientific integrity, particularly in fostering genuine intellectual leadership, managing author productivity, and avoiding academic endogamy. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its recognized thematic leadership, as evidenced by its high national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, including top positions in Computer Science (2nd), Psychology (5th), and Medicine (6th). However, this strong performance is critically undermined by a significant-risk signal in the rate of retracted output, which far exceeds the national average and points to systemic vulnerabilities in pre-publication quality control. While a specific institutional mission was not available for this analysis, such a critical integrity gap directly challenges the universal academic pursuit of excellence and social responsibility. To secure its reputation and align its operational integrity with its academic ambitions, the university should leverage its demonstrated governance strengths to urgently address and rectify the procedural weaknesses that lead to high retraction rates.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.086 is notably higher than the national average of 0.589, placing it in a position of high exposure to this medium-level risk. This suggests that while the practice of researchers holding multiple affiliations is a shared characteristic of the national academic system, Jagannath University is more prone to this dynamic than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate warrants a review to ensure it does not signal strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice to which the university appears particularly sensitive.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 6.438, the institution exhibits a significant risk level that starkly contrasts with the country's medium-risk average of 0.666. This indicates that the university is not merely reflecting a national trend but is actively amplifying a systemic vulnerability. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm is a critical alert that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This suggests a potential for recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by the institution's leadership to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.264 that stands in favorable contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.027. This divergence suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of endogamous citation practices observed elsewhere in the country. By maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids creating 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is validated by the global scientific community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration with external research networks.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

Both the institution (Z-score: 0.350) and the country (Z-score: 0.411) register a medium level of risk, but the university's slightly lower score points to a degree of differentiated management. This suggests that the institution is making a more concerted effort than the national average to moderate the common risk of publishing in questionable outlets. Nevertheless, a medium-risk score remains a concern, as it indicates that a portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international quality standards. This highlights a need to reinforce information literacy and due diligence protocols to avoid reputational damage and the misallocation of research resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.840 is almost identical to the national average of -0.864, reflecting a state of statistical normality. Both scores are in the low-risk category, indicating that authorship practices at the university are well-aligned with the national context and do not present integrity concerns. This suggests a research culture that successfully distinguishes between legitimate large-scale collaboration and inappropriate author list inflation, thereby preserving transparency and individual accountability in its scholarly output.

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

Jagannath University shows a remarkable case of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.418 that is fundamentally different from the country's medium-risk average of 0.147. This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the national dynamic of relying on external collaborators for scientific impact. Instead, the university's prestige appears to be structural and sustainable, built upon strong internal capacity and genuine intellectual leadership. This is a significant strength, demonstrating that its excellence metrics are a direct result of its own research capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's very low-risk Z-score of -1.413 demonstrates low-profile consistency, aligning with and even improving upon the country's low-risk average of -0.403. The complete absence of risk signals in this area is a positive indicator of a healthy research environment. It suggests that the university's culture prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume, effectively discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, and fostering a sustainable balance between productivity and quality.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in total alignment with the country's very low-risk average of -0.243, demonstrating a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. This integrity synchrony indicates that the university avoids excessive dependence on its in-house journals, thus mitigating potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By favoring external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution exhibits a prudent profile, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.247 that is notably better than the national average of -0.139. This suggests that its internal processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard when it comes to preventing data fragmentation. This disciplined approach discourages the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to inflate publication counts—and instead promotes the dissemination of coherent, significant new knowledge that genuinely contributes to the scientific record.