| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.167 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.183 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.763 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.977 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.056 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.076 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.230 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.315 | 0.720 |
Maharishi Markandeshwar University presents a complex integrity profile, marked by a commendable overall score of 0.408 that reflects both significant strengths and specific areas requiring strategic intervention. The institution demonstrates robust governance in key areas, showing very low risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and Output in Institutional Journals, and maintaining a low-risk profile for Institutional Self-Citation and Hyper-Authored Output. These strengths suggest a solid foundation in authorship transparency and a commitment to external validation. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk signals in five indicators, most notably a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a tendency toward redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Dentistry (ranked 21st in India), Physics and Astronomy (64th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (73rd). To fully align with its mission "To develop better than the best professionals for the economic development of the country," it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. Practices that prioritize publication volume over substance, such as potential 'salami slicing' or reliance on low-quality journals, could undermine the standard of excellence the mission espouses. By leveraging its foundational strengths to mitigate these risks, the university can ensure its scientific output genuinely contributes to national development and solidifies its reputation for academic integrity.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally secure profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.167, which is even lower than the already low national average of -0.927. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals related to affiliation management, positioning the university as a leader in transparency. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's operational silence in this indicator demonstrates clear, unambiguous, and well-defined affiliation practices that align with the highest standards of research integrity.
With a Z-score of 0.183, the institution's rate of retractions is lower than the national average of 0.279, despite both falling within a medium-risk context. This suggests a differentiated management of post-publication quality control. The university appears to moderate the risks of systemic error more effectively than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than average can alert to vulnerabilities in an institution's integrity culture. In this case, the university's ability to maintain a lower rate indicates that its pre-publication quality control mechanisms, while not infallible, are performing with greater rigor than the national standard.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.763 in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.520. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. By maintaining a low rate, the university proves its research is achieving external recognition and avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global scientific community.
The institution shows high exposure in this critical area, with a Z-score of 1.977, significantly exceeding the national medium-risk average of 1.099. This suggests the university is more prone than its peers to channeling research into questionable publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it indicates that production may be directed to media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
The institution's Z-score of -1.056 is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -1.024. This indicates that the risk level for inflated author lists is as expected for its context and size, showing no deviation from national practices. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The university's alignment with the national norm suggests its collaborative and authorship attribution practices are standard and do not currently present a signal of concern.
A moderate deviation is observed here, with the institution's Z-score of 2.076 (medium risk) showing greater sensitivity to this risk factor than the national average of -0.292 (low risk). This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. The high value indicates that while overall impact is notable, the impact of research led directly by the institution is comparatively low. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university displays a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a medium-risk Z-score of 0.230 compared to the country's low-risk average of -0.067. This suggests a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts 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 and warrant a review of internal authorship policies.
The institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with its national environment, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is almost identical to the country's average of -0.250. Both scores are in the very low-risk category, signifying total alignment in an environment of maximum scientific security. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The university's extremely low rate in this indicator is a strong positive signal, confirming its commitment to seeking independent external peer review and ensuring its research competes on a global stage rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
A high exposure to this risk is evident, as the institution's Z-score of 1.315 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.720, although both are in the medium-risk category. This indicates the university is more prone to publishing fragmented or overlapping work than its environment average. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This alert suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume, as the current trend risks distorting the scientific evidence base.
