GH Raisoni College of Engineering

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

GH Raisoni College of Engineering presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, marked by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.527, the institution demonstrates robust control over authorship practices and collaboration transparency, outperforming national averages in several key indicators. This strong foundation is reflected in its notable rankings within India, particularly in Physics and Astronomy (35th), Mathematics (38th), and Engineering (51st), as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this profile is critically undermined by significant alerts in Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output. These practices risk creating an internal 'echo chamber' and prioritizing publication volume over substantive contribution, which directly challenges the institutional mission to "impart quality education" and "create competent professionals." To fully align its research activities with its stated commitment to excellence and stakeholder satisfaction, the institution is advised to leverage its strengths in governance to urgently address these specific areas of high risk, thereby ensuring its research and development efforts are both productive and unimpeachably sound.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates an exemplary profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.126, which is even more favorable than the national average of -0.927. This result signifies a complete absence of risk signals related to affiliation management, suggesting that the institution's policies are exceptionally clear and transparent. The data confirms that affiliations are handled with a rigor that surpasses the national standard, effectively eliminating any ambiguity that could be perceived as strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution shows a low rate of retracted publications, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.279. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, the institution's low rate indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, preventing the systemic failures or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to a higher volume of withdrawn articles.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 5.755 for self-citation, a value that drastically exceeds the national average of 0.520. This finding suggests the institution is significantly amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. While some self-citation reflects ongoing research, this disproportionately high rate signals a concerning level of scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice poses a severe risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence is potentially oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 2.324 indicates a medium risk, but its position relative to the national average of 1.099 reveals a higher exposure to this issue. This suggests the institution is more prone than its national peers to publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards. A high proportion of output in such venues is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a notable portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet ethical or quality benchmarks, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.309, well below the country's low-risk score of -1.024. This absence of risk signals is consistent with the national standard and points to healthy and transparent authorship practices. The data confirms that the institution is not exhibiting patterns of author list inflation outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, thereby upholding individual accountability and avoiding the dilution of responsibility that can occur with 'honorary' or political authorship.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

With a Z-score of -2.091, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, significantly better than the national average of -0.292. This excellent result indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is strong and self-sufficient, aligning with the impact generated through collaborations. This alignment signals a high degree of scientific autonomy and structural capacity for excellence. It confirms that the institution's prestige is built on genuine internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.148 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting favorably with the national low-risk average of -0.067. This lack of signals related to hyperprolificacy is consistent with a healthy research environment. It suggests that the institution fosters a culture where the balance between quantity and quality is maintained, avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost perfectly aligned with the national average of -0.250, placing both in the very low-risk category. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a total alignment with a national environment of maximum security in this area. The data confirms that the institution does not excessively depend on its own journals for dissemination, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its credibility and global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 5.299, a critical red flag that significantly surpasses the national medium-risk average of 0.720. This indicates that the institution is not just following but drastically amplifying a national vulnerability concerning publication integrity. Such a high value points to the widespread practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This behavior distorts the scientific record and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, and requires immediate and decisive corrective action.