Patan Academy of Health Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Patan Academy of Health Sciences (PAHS) demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of 0.196. The institution's primary strengths lie in its commitment to external validation and responsible authorship practices, with exceptionally low risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), Hyperprolific Authors, and a notable avoidance of publishing in institutional journals, a practice that poses a medium risk at the national level. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its research activities. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate deviation from national norms in the Rate of Retracted Output and Hyper-Authored Output, alongside a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. The institution's prominent ranking in Medicine (3rd in Nepal according to SCImago Institutions Rankings) underscores its critical role in the national health landscape. To fully align with its mission of achieving "excellence" and serving Nepal's rural communities, it is crucial to address these integrity vulnerabilities. A high rate of retractions or questionable authorship could undermine the credibility of its research, while a dependency on external leadership for impact may limit its long-term capacity for innovation. By leveraging its foundational integrity to mitigate these specific risks, PAHS can ensure its scientific output is not only impactful but also unimpeachably aligned with its core values of excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.143, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.567. This result indicates a very low and well-controlled incidence of multiple affiliations, aligning with the low-risk profile observed nationally but demonstrating an even more conservative approach. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's exceptionally low rate suggests clear and unambiguous affiliation policies. This operational clarity prevents the potential for strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensures that institutional credit is assigned with precision, reflecting a strong commitment to transparent research accounting.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.662, the institution presents a medium risk level, which marks a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.207. This suggests that the institution is more exposed to retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing more frequently than elsewhere in the country, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.473 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the already low national average of -0.676. This demonstrates a strong adherence to practices that favor external validation over internal reinforcement. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the academy's near-absence of this indicator is a positive sign that it avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from scientific isolation. This result strongly suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, reinforcing the credibility and external relevance of its work.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.190, a medium risk level that is slightly better than the national average of 1.400. This indicates that while publishing in discontinued journals is a shared challenge within the country, the academy demonstrates a comparatively better capacity to manage this risk. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the institution performs better than its peers, the medium risk level still suggests a need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical standards, thereby preventing reputational damage and the misallocation of resources to predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.616, the institution shows a medium risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.348. This discrepancy suggests the institution is more prone to publishing works with extensive author lists than its national counterparts. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" disciplines, their appearance outside these contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This indicator serves as a signal for the institution to review its authorship practices and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially "honorary" or political authorship, ensuring transparency and fairness in credit attribution.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of 2.891, a medium risk level that is notably higher than the national average of 2.037. This indicates that the institution is more exposed than its peers to a dependency on external collaboration for impact. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This high value suggests that the academy's scientific prestige may be largely exogenous and not yet fully structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from advantageous positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, placing it far below the national average of -0.801. This result points to a healthy and balanced research environment, free from the pressures that lead to extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can sometimes reflect leadership, extreme output often challenges the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The academy's very low score in this area is a strong indicator that it successfully avoids risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low risk, effectively isolating itself from a practice that represents a medium risk at the national level (Z-score of 0.409). This preventive stance is a significant strength. While in-house journals can be useful, excessive dependence on them creates conflicts of interest. The institution's avoidance of this practice demonstrates a clear commitment to independent, external peer review. This strategy enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, signaling that its scientific production competes on the world stage rather than relying on internal "fast tracks" that may bypass standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution records a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a near-total absence of risk signals and performing even better than the very low national average of -0.756. This operational silence in redundant publications is a hallmark of high scientific integrity. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or "salami slicing," a practice aimed at artificially inflating productivity. The institution's extremely low score suggests its researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies rather than dividing work into minimal publishable units, thereby contributing substantial new knowledge and respecting the scientific review system.