| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.069 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.070 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.034 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
12.149 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.623 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
5.779 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.795 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.039 | 0.720 |
Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant, urgent vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 2.655, the institution demonstrates notable strengths in preventing academic endogamy, with very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, and maintains a prudent approach to multiple affiliations. These strengths align with its mission to foster transparent and accountable governance. However, this positive performance is overshadowed by critical risks in publication strategy and research dependency. The extremely high rates of publication in discontinued journals and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its internally-led research pose direct threats to its mission of generating "quality," "consequential and meaningful outcomes." These indicators suggest that while the institution excels in certain areas of integrity, its pursuit of global relevance may be undermined by a reliance on low-quality publication channels and a dependency on external collaborators for impact. This profile is complemented by strong thematic rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Dentistry (ranked 7th in India), Arts and Humanities (45th), and Medicine (133rd), showcasing clear areas of academic excellence. To fully leverage these strengths and align its practices with its mission, the institution is advised to urgently address its publication due diligence and foster greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations, thereby ensuring its reputation for quality is built on a foundation of sustainable and robust scientific integrity.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low risk profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.069, which is even more conservative than the already low national average of -0.927. This demonstrates a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, indicating that the institution's collaborative practices are well-defined and do not generate signals associated with strategic inflation of institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution’s extremely low rate confirms that its collaborative framework is robust and transparent, fully aligning with best practices and avoiding any ambiguity in institutional attribution.
With a Z-score of 0.070, the institution's rate of retractions is moderate but significantly lower than the national average of 0.279. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution's internal controls appear to successfully moderate a risk that is more common at the national level. Retractions are complex events, and a certain number can reflect responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors. However, the institution’s ability to maintain a lower rate than its peers indicates that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms are comparatively effective, although the medium-level signal still warrants ongoing attention to uphold its integrity culture.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -1.034 placing it in the very low-risk category, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.520. This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s exceptionally low rate shows it successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation. This performance strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny from the global community rather than being sustained by internal dynamics.
This indicator presents a critical alert, as the institution's Z-score of 12.149 is in the significant risk category and drastically exceeds the medium-risk national average of 1.099. This pattern signals a risk accentuation, where the institution amplifies vulnerabilities already present in the national system. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This extremely high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it 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 Z-score of -0.623 is in the low-risk category, similar to the national average of -1.024, but is slightly higher. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the institution shows minor signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this slight elevation relative to the national baseline serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable across all disciplines, clearly distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially dilutive 'honorary' authorship.
A severe discrepancy is evident in this indicator, with the institution registering a significant-risk Z-score of 5.779, making it an absolute outlier compared to the low-risk national average of -0.292. This atypical risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. The very wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. This result 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, a situation that challenges its mission to generate "consequential and meaningful outcomes" through its own research milieu.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.795, while the country's average is in the low-risk category at -0.067. This indicates that the center shows greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with hyperprolificity than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution demonstrates integrity synchrony with its national environment, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is almost identical to the country average of -0.250, both in the very low-risk category. This reflects a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, thereby strengthening its global visibility and validating its research against international competitive standards.
With a Z-score of 1.039, the institution is in the medium-risk category, but its score indicates a high exposure to this risk, as it is notably above the national average of 0.720. This suggests the institution is more prone to showing alert signals for this behavior than its environment average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated value alerts to a potential prioritization of volume over significant new knowledge, a practice that can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer review system.
