| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.696 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.117 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.898 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.119 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.092 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.277 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
Navsari Agricultural University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.124 that indicates general alignment with national and international standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and robust internal controls in several key areas, including an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, redundant output, and hyperprolific authorship, effectively insulating itself from risks prevalent in the national context. However, strategic attention is required for a few medium-risk indicators, namely the rate of output in discontinued journals, the rate of retracted output, and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a strong thematic position in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Environmental Science. While the institution's specific mission was not localized for this analysis, the identified vulnerabilities could challenge any mission centered on research excellence and societal leadership. A dependency on external partners for impact and publishing in non-vetted journals can undermine long-term credibility. Overall, Navsari Agricultural University has a solid foundation of scientific integrity; by strategically addressing these specific areas of vulnerability, it can fully leverage its thematic strengths, enhance its global reputation, and ensure its research contributions are both impactful and sustainable.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.696, which is substantially lower than the national average of -0.927. This result signifies a complete absence of risk signals related to affiliation practices, positioning the university as a benchmark of transparency in this area, even within a country context that already shows very low risk. The data suggests that affiliations are managed with exceptional clarity, avoiding any patterns that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” This reflects a robust and unambiguous policy regarding researcher identification and institutional representation.
With a Z-score of 0.117, the institution shows a more moderate risk level for retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.279. This indicates a degree of differentiated management, where the university appears to contain this risk more effectively than is common across the country. While retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors, a persistent signal in this indicator suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may have room for improvement. The university's better-than-average performance is positive, but the presence of any signal warrants a review to ensure that potential recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor is proactively addressed.
The university demonstrates a Z-score of -0.898, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.520, which falls into a medium-risk category. This excellent result indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate confirms its work is validated by the broader scientific community, not just within an internal 'echo chamber.' This performance strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is driven by global recognition rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
With a Z-score of 1.119, closely mirroring the national average of 1.099, the institution's performance reflects a systemic pattern observable across the country. This alignment suggests that the practice of publishing in journals that are later discontinued is influenced by shared environmental factors or common information gaps at a national level. This indicator serves as a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A continued presence in such media exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to strengthen information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable scientific output into 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The institution's Z-score of -1.092 is slightly better than the national standard of -1.024, indicating a prudent and rigorous profile in managing authorship. This suggests that the university's processes are more stringent than the national norm, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential author list inflation. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored publications outside of 'Big Science' contexts, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency, mitigating risks associated with 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The university presents a Z-score of 2.277, which marks a moderate deviation and shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to the national average of -0.292. This analysis reveals a significant positive gap where the institution's overall impact is considerably higher than the impact of the research it leads directly. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership or from its positioning within broader research networks where it does not hold a primary role.
The institution registers a Z-score of -1.413, a very low-risk value that contrasts with the national average of -0.067. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This score indicates that the university is effectively preventing authorship dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record. It suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real intellectual participation that can arise from extreme publication volumes.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in close alignment with the national average of -0.250, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. The data confirms that the university 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, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.720. This wide gap signifies a successful preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics of data fragmentation observed in its environment. The result strongly indicates that the university's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant, coherent new knowledge protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
