| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.394 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.061 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.017 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.008 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.847 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.681 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.523 | 0.027 |
Claremont Graduate University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.207 indicating performance that is well-aligned with best practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored output, an exemplary low incidence of hyperprolific authors, and a negligible reliance on institutional journals, reflecting a culture of responsible authorship and external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a medium-risk exposure to redundant publications, a notable dependency on external partners for research impact, and a concerning rate of publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Psychology, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Arts and Humanities. To fully realize its mission "to create new knowledge and prepare leaders," it is crucial to address the identified risks. Practices like publishing in low-quality journals or fragmenting research threaten the creation of reliable knowledge, while impact dependency can undermine the development of genuine academic leadership. By focusing on these vulnerabilities, the university can further solidify its commitment to excellence and ensure its scholarly contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's profile is generally aligned with national norms, showing a low rate of multiple affiliations. With a Z-score of -0.394, its performance is within the expected low-risk range for the United States (country average: -0.514), though it does signal a minor, emerging vulnerability. While multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this slight upward deviation warrants observation to ensure it does not evolve into a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping,” thereby preserving the transparency of institutional contributions.
Claremont Graduate University maintains a low rate of retractions, consistent with the national context. Its Z-score of -0.061 is slightly higher than the country average of -0.126, which points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when correcting honest errors. However, a rate that edges above the national norm, even if still low, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may have vulnerabilities. This serves as an early indicator to reinforce methodological rigor and prevent any potential systemic issues before they escalate.
The institution's rate of self-citation falls within a low-risk band, yet its Z-score of -0.017 is notably higher than the national average of -0.566. This suggests an incipient vulnerability and a developing tendency that, while not currently problematic, should be monitored. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but if this trend grows, it could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. Continued observation is recommended to ensure the institution's academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than endogamous dynamics.
This indicator presents a clear monitoring alert, as the institution's Z-score of 0.008 (Medium risk) stands in stark contrast to the national average of -0.415 (Very Low risk). This unusual risk level for the national standard requires a review of its causes. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience in managing authorship practices. With a Z-score of -0.847, it shows a very low incidence of hyper-authorship, effectively acting as a firewall against a systemic risk that is more prevalent at the national level (country Z-score: 0.594). This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms successfully mitigate the country's risk dynamics. Such a result points to robust governance that prevents author list inflation, promotes clear individual accountability, and successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution shows a high exposure to risks related to impact dependency, with a Z-score of 0.681 that is significantly higher than the national average of 0.284. This indicates that the university is more prone to this vulnerability than its environment average. Such a wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low—signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
Claremont Graduate University exhibits an exemplary profile in this area, demonstrating a low-profile consistency that aligns with and surpasses the national standard. The institutional Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, indicating a near-total absence of risk signals compared to the country's already low average of -0.275. This result reflects a healthy research environment that avoids the pressures that can lead to imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
A clear integrity synchrony exists between the institution and the national environment regarding this indicator. The institutional Z-score of -0.268 is nearly identical to the country average of -0.220, demonstrating total alignment with a context of maximum scientific security. This indicates that the institution successfully avoids the risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. By ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review rather than being channeled through internal 'fast tracks,' the university promotes global visibility and competitive validation for its scholarly output.
The institution demonstrates a high exposure to practices of redundant publication, with a Z-score of 0.523 that is substantially higher than the national average of 0.027. This suggests it is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This dynamic not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
