| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.070 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.475 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.184 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.485 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.704 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.715 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.865 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.274 | 0.720 |
The Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.355, indicating a performance significantly better than the global average. The institution exhibits exceptional control in areas such as the Rate of Retracted Output and publication in Discontinued Journals, effectively isolating itself from national risk trends. However, areas of moderate concern have been identified, particularly regarding the Gap between the impact of its total output and that of its internally-led research, as well as the Rate of Redundant Output. This strong integrity foundation supports its notable academic standing, as reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds prominent national positions in key areas such as Arts and Humanities, Environmental Science, and Computer Science. While the overall low-risk environment aligns with its mission to "develop top notch scientists" and "undertake ground breaking research," the identified vulnerabilities in research dependency and publication strategy could hinder the full realization of these aspirations. Ensuring that scientific prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and prioritizes substantive contributions over volume is crucial for upholding the institution's commitment to societal impact and excellence. Therefore, a strategic focus on strengthening intellectual leadership and promoting publication practices that emphasize novel, integrated research will be key to consolidating its position as a leader in science and technology.
The institution's Z-score of -0.070 indicates a low-risk level, though it represents a slight divergence from the national context, which has a Z-score of -0.927. This suggests the emergence of risk signals at the institution that are not present in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this small deviation warrants attention to ensure these are strategic collaborations and not early signs of "affiliation shopping" intended to inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of -0.475, the institution maintains a very low rate of retractions, in stark contrast to the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.279). This performance demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, indicating that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms are failing systemically. In this case, the institution's excellent result points to highly effective internal supervision and a strong integrity culture, successfully preventing the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be occurring elsewhere.
The institution's Z-score of -0.184 reflects a low-risk profile, demonstrating significant institutional resilience when compared to the country's medium-risk Z-score of 0.520. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present at the national level. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can signal scientific 'echo chambers'. By maintaining a low rate, the institution avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensures its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.485, a very low-risk value that signals a positive and deliberate isolation from the national trend, which stands at a medium-risk Z-score of 1.099. This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. The institution's strong performance reflects a high level of information literacy in selecting dissemination channels, protecting it from severe reputational risks and ensuring that resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.704, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is low, but it is slightly higher than the national baseline of -1.024. This points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this indicator serves as a signal to ensure that authorship practices across all disciplines are transparent and reflect genuine contribution, thereby avoiding the dilution of individual accountability or the rise of 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution presents a medium-level risk with a Z-score of 0.715, a moderate deviation from its national peers, who exhibit a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.292. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor. A wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a critical reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, posing a potential risk to long-term research sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -0.865 is significantly lower than the national Z-score of -0.067, both within the low-risk category. This demonstrates a prudent profile, indicating that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining this low rate, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the prioritization of quantity over quality, ensuring that authorship is assigned for genuine participation and upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is very low and demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment (Z-score: -0.250). This total alignment reflects a shared commitment to avoiding potential conflicts of interest. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can lead to academic endogamy, where production bypasses independent peer review. By not over-relying on these channels, the institution ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, which is essential for achieving global visibility.
The institution exhibits a medium-risk Z-score of 0.274, which, while indicating a need for attention, reflects a differentiated management approach compared to the higher national Z-score of 0.720. This shows the institution is moderating a risk that appears more common in the country. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The current level, although contained relative to the environment, suggests that continued monitoring is advisable to ensure the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than on volume.
