| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.466 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.502 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.321 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.088 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.353 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.317. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in governance, with very low risk levels in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Redundant Output, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, indicating a culture that prioritizes quality and ethical rigor. However, a significant vulnerability is identified in the Gap between the impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership, which requires immediate strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic excellence is clearly concentrated in Veterinary sciences, where it holds a Top 5 national ranking (4th in India), complemented by strong positions in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Medicine. This performance aligns well with its mission to develop "quality manpower" and generate "technologies for the benefit of stakeholders." Nevertheless, the identified dependency on external collaborations for high-impact research could challenge the long-term sustainability of this mission, particularly the goal of "generating" technologies through internal leadership. To secure its future and fully embody its mission of excellence, it is recommended that the university leverage its solid integrity foundation to develop targeted strategies that foster and empower internal research leadership, transforming its collaborative success into structural, self-sustaining capacity.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.466, which, while low, is notably higher than the national average of -0.927. This slight divergence suggests the emergence of risk signals within the university that are not characteristic of the broader national scientific landscape. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's higher rate compared to a very low-risk national baseline warrants monitoring. It is important to ensure that these affiliations are a product of genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the university's distinct research identity.
With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.279. This performance demonstrates significant institutional resilience, indicating that its internal control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly lower than an environment with medium-level risk suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This showcases a strong integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be more common elsewhere in the country.
The institution's Z-score of -0.502 is substantially healthier than the national average of 0.520. This gap highlights a commendable level of institutional resilience against practices that can lead to academic isolation. While the national context shows a medium risk of creating 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally, the university's low self-citation rate indicates that its research is actively engaging with and being recognized by the global scientific community. This practice avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensures that the institution's academic influence is built on broad, external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of -0.321 contrasts sharply with the national average of 1.099, signaling strong institutional resilience. In a national environment where publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards is a medium risk, the institution's very low rate demonstrates excellent due diligence in selecting publication venues. This careful approach protects its scientific output from being associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices, safeguarding its reputation and ensuring that research efforts are channeled through credible and impactful media, reflecting a high degree of information literacy.
With a Z-score of -1.088, slightly below the national average of -1.024, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in its authorship practices. This suggests that its processes are managed with slightly more rigor than the national standard. This low rate is a positive indicator of transparency and accountability, confirming that the university is effectively mitigating the risks of author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships. By maintaining clear and justifiable author lists, the institution reinforces the principle of meaningful contribution and individual responsibility in its research.
The institution's Z-score of 3.353 marks a severe discrepancy from the low-risk national average of -0.292, indicating an atypical risk activity that requires a deep strategic assessment. This extremely high positive gap points to a critical sustainability risk, as it suggests the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and may not be structural. The data warns that its high-impact metrics may result more from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own internal capacity. This situation calls for an urgent review of strategies to foster homegrown research leadership to ensure long-term scientific autonomy and impact.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of -0.067. This demonstrates a commendable low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals at the university is even more pronounced than the already low-risk national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. Therefore, this very low indicator suggests a healthy institutional balance between productivity and quality, effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or superficial contributions, and upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.250. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, where the university's practices are fully consistent with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and validating its scientific contributions through standard, competitive processes.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 stands in direct opposition to the national average of 0.720, indicating a successful preventive isolation from a risk dynamic prevalent in its environment. While the national context shows a medium risk of 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating publication counts by fragmenting studies—the university's very low score demonstrates a strong ethical stance. This commitment to publishing coherent, significant studies rather than minimal publishable units respects the scientific record and the peer-review system, prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over the pursuit of volume.
