Graphic Era University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

With an overall scientific integrity score of 0.768, Graphic Era University demonstrates a complex profile characterized by areas of exceptional governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require immediate attention. The institution exhibits robust control in managing hyper-authorship and publication in institutional journals, maintaining a prudent profile that often surpasses national standards in mitigating risks like retracted output. The university's thematic strengths are notable, with high national rankings in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 13th in India), Computer Science (38th), Physics and Astronomy (38th), and Mathematics (39th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong academic positioning is threatened by critical risk levels in hyperprolific authorship and redundant publications. These practices directly conflict with the university's mission to "promote learning in the true spirit" and cultivate "responsible citizens," as they prioritize publication volume over the substantive quality and ethical rigor essential for true professional and civic development. To safeguard its reputation and fully align its practices with its mission, the university is advised to implement targeted strategies to address these specific integrity challenges, thereby reinforcing its foundation of academic excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.764, a stark contrast to the national average of -0.927. This discrepancy signals a monitoring alert, as the university's rate of multiple affiliations is unusually high for the Indian context, which generally shows very low risk in this area. This situation requires a review of internal policies and researcher practices. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The university should investigate the drivers behind this trend to ensure that affiliations reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than administrative optimization.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.061, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience, performing significantly better than the national average of 0.279, where this indicator is a medium risk. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate indicates that quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are likely robust and functioning well, preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.725, notably higher than the national average of 0.520. Although both fall within a medium-risk category, this comparison indicates a high exposure at the institutional level, suggesting it is more prone to this behavior than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate warns of potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by external scrutiny from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university shows a Z-score of 0.851, which, while indicating a medium risk, reflects differentiated management compared to the national average of 1.099. This suggests the institution is moderating a risk that is more common across the country, demonstrating relatively better due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Nonetheless, a continued presence in discontinued journals constitutes an alert. It indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, highlighting a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid reputational risks and wasted resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.198, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, as its absence of risk signals in this area aligns well with the low-risk national standard (-1.024). This indicates that the university's authorship practices are transparent and appropriate for its disciplinary context. The very low score suggests that the institution effectively avoids author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and ensuring that authorship credit is granted legitimately, which is a sign of a healthy research culture.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.486 indicates a prudent profile, as it reflects more rigorous management of this indicator than the national standard (-0.292). A low, negative gap suggests that the scientific prestige of the university is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead built on strong structural foundations. This healthy balance indicates that the institution's excellence metrics result from real internal capacity, with its own researchers exercising intellectual leadership in a significant portion of its impactful work.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 3.859 represents a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.067. This risk activity is highly atypical and signals a critical issue requiring a deep integrity assessment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This significant alert points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality and raises concerns about risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has an average of -0.250. This total alignment in a very low-risk area is a positive sign. It indicates that the university avoids excessive dependence on its own journals, thus preventing potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party. By favoring external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation and avoids the risks of academic endogamy.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a Z-score of 3.568, the institution shows a significant risk accentuation, amplifying a vulnerability that is present but less pronounced in the national system (average score of 0.720). This high value is a critical alert for the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such massive and recurring bibliographic overlap, known as 'salami slicing,' not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.