| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.645 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.272 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.355 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.405 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.498 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.970 | 0.720 |
Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya presents a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall score of 0.207. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over most risk indicators, particularly in preventing retractions, institutional self-citation, and multiple affiliation anomalies. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a critical rate of publication in discontinued journals and a concerning level of redundant output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, RGPV's research strengths are most prominent in Environmental Science, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Computer Science, where it holds its best national rankings. These findings present a mixed alignment with the institutional mission to be a "hub of pre-eminence for conveying high quality affordable education." While the low incidence of most integrity risks supports the pursuit of quality, the high rate of output in discontinued journals directly undermines this goal. This practice suggests a potential gap in due diligence that could lead to reputational damage and misallocation of resources, contradicting the aspiration for "pre-eminence." Similarly, a tendency towards redundant publications could hinder meaningful contributions to the "economic development of the country" by prioritizing volume over substantive innovation. To fully realize its mission, it is recommended that RGPV focuses on targeted interventions, such as enhanced training on selecting reputable publication venues and promoting research practices that value novel contributions over sheer output volume. Addressing these specific areas will solidify its strong integrity framework and accelerate its journey towards becoming a recognized leader.
The institution's Z-score of -1.645 for the Rate of Multiple Affiliations is significantly lower than the national average of -0.927, indicating a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This demonstrates exceptionally rigorous control over affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. RGPV's performance shows no evidence of such "affiliation shopping," reflecting a clear and transparent policy regarding researcher attributions that sets a standard even within a low-risk national context.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution shows a negligible Rate of Retracted Output, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.279. This demonstrates a successful preventive stance, insulating the institution from the systemic issues that may be affecting its peers. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing prior to publication. RGPV's excellent result indicates that its internal review and supervision processes are robust, effectively safeguarding its scientific record and maintaining a culture of integrity that is independent of broader environmental vulnerabilities.
The institution's Z-score for the Rate of Institutional Self-Citation is -1.272, a very low value that stands in sharp contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.520. This significant difference highlights the institution's success in avoiding the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. RGPV's profile suggests its research is well-integrated into the global scientific community, relying on external scrutiny and recognition rather than internal reinforcement, thereby ensuring its academic influence is genuinely earned.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.355 for its Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, a significant risk level that markedly amplifies the medium-risk vulnerability already present at the national level (1.099). This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals indicates that a significant amount of research is being directed to venues that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy among its researchers to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-integrity publishing.
The institution's Z-score of -1.401 for the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output is very low and aligns with the low-risk national standard of -1.024. This result indicates a healthy and consistent approach to authorship attribution. When hyper-authorship appears outside of "Big Science" contexts, it can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. RGPV's low score suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and appropriate for its disciplinary focus, effectively avoiding the risks of 'honorary' or political authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.405, the institution's Gap between the impact of its total output and the impact of its leadership output is slightly lower than the national average of -0.292. This prudent profile suggests more rigorous management of its research portfolio compared to the national standard. A very wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than resulting from real internal capacity. RGPV's score indicates a healthy balance, suggesting that its scientific excellence is largely driven by its own intellectual leadership, ensuring a sustainable and structurally sound research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -0.498 for the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors is notably lower than the national average of -0.067, reflecting a more rigorous approach to managing research productivity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. RGPV's prudent profile in this area suggests a balanced academic environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for the Rate of Output in Institutional Journals is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.250, indicating complete synchrony with a secure national environment. This result shows that the institution is not overly reliant on its own journals for dissemination. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, allowing research to bypass independent external peer review. RGPV's alignment with the low national norm demonstrates a commitment to global visibility and competitive validation through external channels.
The institution's Z-score of 0.970 for the Rate of Redundant Output places it at a medium risk level, showing a higher exposure to this issue than the national average of 0.720. This suggests the institution is more prone to practices that artificially inflate productivity. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications usually indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units. This practice distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. The elevated score warrants a review of institutional policies to encourage the publication of more substantive and coherent research contributions.
