| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.174 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.117 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.235 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.818 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.782 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.143 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.867 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.245 | 0.720 |
The University of Petroleum and Energy Studies demonstrates a solid overall performance with an integrity score of 0.430, reflecting a profile with significant strengths in research governance alongside specific, addressable vulnerabilities. The institution excels in maintaining academic independence, evidenced by very low rates of output in its own journals and a healthy rate of institutional self-citation that is better than the national average. However, areas requiring strategic attention include the rates of multiple affiliations and hyperprolific authors, which are notably higher than the national standard. These integrity metrics are contextualized by the university's strong thematic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among India's top institutions in key areas such as Computer Science (28th), Psychology (28th), Engineering (37th), and Social Sciences (37th). This academic success aligns with its mission to develop industry-focused professionals, but the identified risks could challenge the commitment to "high standards of professional ethics." To fully realize its vision, the university is encouraged to leverage its robust governance in areas of strength to develop targeted policies that mitigate the observed vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring that its pursuit of excellence is unequivocally built on a foundation of scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.174 for multiple affiliations presents a significant departure from the national average of -0.927, triggering a monitoring alert due to its unusual level within the national context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This divergence from the national norm warrants a review of the underlying causes to ensure that affiliation practices reflect genuine, substantive collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping" aimed at maximizing institutional rankings.
With a Z-score of 0.117, the institution shows a lower incidence of retracted publications compared to the national average of 0.279. This suggests a differentiated management approach that effectively moderates a risk more common across the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national average is a positive signal, indicating that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be more robust, helping to prevent systemic failures and protect its culture of integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.235 is notably healthier than the national average of 0.520, demonstrating strong institutional resilience against a systemic risk present in the wider environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's controlled rate indicates its control mechanisms are successfully mitigating this tendency. By avoiding disproportionately high rates, the institution ensures its work is validated by the global community, steering clear of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' and confirming its academic influence is based on external recognition rather than endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.818 for publications in discontinued journals is lower than the national average of 1.099, indicating a more effective management of publication channels. This suggests a differentiated approach that moderates a risk more prevalent at the national level. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence, so this better-than-average performance points to a stronger process for selecting dissemination venues, which helps protect the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is -0.782, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -1.024. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the university shows early signals of this risk that warrant review before they escalate. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, it is crucial to monitor this trend to ensure it does not mask author list inflation or 'honorary' authorship practices in other disciplines, which would dilute individual accountability and transparency.
The institution registers a Z-score of -0.143 in the gap between its overall impact and the impact of its led research, a figure slightly higher than the national average of -0.292. This indicates an incipient vulnerability that should be monitored. A very wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated. While the current level is low, this slight elevation warrants a review to ensure that the institution's excellence metrics are increasingly driven by its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 1.867 for hyperprolific authors marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.067, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is nearly identical to the national average of -0.250, the institution demonstrates integrity synchrony in this area. This reflects a total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security regarding the use of institutional journals. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house publications, the university effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves the global visibility necessary for impactful research.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.245, a figure significantly lower than the national average of 0.720. This points to differentiated management, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common in its national context. This lower score suggests a stronger institutional culture against 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This approach upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over mere volume.
