| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.455 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.324 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.415 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.765 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.362 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.287 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.175 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.491 | 0.720 |
COEP Technological University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.313. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in managing risks associated with multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, impact dependency, and hyperprolific authors, indicating strong internal governance and a culture of responsible research conduct. This solid foundation is further evidenced by the institution's resilience in controlling retraction rates and institutional self-citation, where it significantly outperforms national averages. These strengths align well with its prominent research standing, particularly in its highest-ranked thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data: Earth and Planetary Sciences, Energy, Physics and Astronomy, and Mathematics. However, moderate risks in publication channel selection and redundant output suggest a potential misalignment with the university's mission to "promote and undertake all-inclusive research and development." These practices, if unaddressed, could dilute the impact of its excellent research and hinder its goal of addressing societal problems. By focusing on enhancing publication strategies and promoting research of greater substance, the university can fully leverage its strengths to solidify its role as a leader in national and international research.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.455, significantly lower than the national average of -0.927. This demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, even when compared to an already low-risk national context. This exceptional result indicates that the university's affiliations are transparent and organically reflect legitimate collaborations. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping,” the data here suggests a robust governance framework that ensures affiliations are a genuine outcome of researcher mobility and partnerships, free from strategic manipulation.
With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.279. This divergence highlights a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. A high rate of retractions can signal that pre-publication quality checks are failing. However, this institution's performance indicates that its integrity culture and methodological rigor are strong, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or errors that might otherwise lead to a higher volume of retracted work.
The institution's Z-score of -0.415 places it in the low-risk category, a positive deviation from the national medium-risk average of 0.520. This demonstrates effective institutional control, preventing the development of concerning scientific isolation. While some self-citation is natural, high rates can create 'echo chambers' that inflate impact through internal validation. This university's low score suggests its research is subject to sufficient external scrutiny, ensuring its academic influence is earned through global community recognition rather than being oversized by endogamous dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.765, which, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 1.099. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university is moderating a risk that appears to be more common across the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The current score indicates that while some production is channeled through media that may not meet international standards, the institution is performing better than its peers, though it still signals a need to enhance information literacy to avoid reputational risks and the wasting of resources on 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.362 is in the very low-risk range, compared to the country's low-risk score of -1.024. This alignment with the national standard, but at an even lower level, points to a consistent and low-profile approach to authorship. The absence of risk signals indicates that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices of 'honorary' or political authorship. This suggests a culture where author lists are managed with transparency, and individual accountability is not diluted by inflation, a practice that can be a concern outside of 'Big Science' contexts.
With a very low-risk Z-score of -1.287, well below the national low-risk average of -0.292, the institution demonstrates a healthy and sustainable impact model. The data shows a negligible gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership. This absence of risk signals aligns with a national standard of good practice and confirms that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derived from its own internal capacity. It avoids the sustainability risk of being dependent on external partners, where excellence metrics might result from strategic positioning rather than genuine research leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.175 (very low risk) is significantly better than the national average of -0.067 (low risk), indicating a strong culture of research quality over sheer quantity. This low-profile consistency shows an environment where extreme individual publication volumes, which can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, are not a concern. The data suggests the institution successfully avoids potential imbalances that can lead to coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.250, both falling within the very low-risk category. This reflects a complete integrity synchrony with the national environment, which operates with maximum security in this regard. The data confirms that the institution is not overly dependent on its own journals, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, promoting global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 1.491 places it in the medium-risk category, a score notably higher than the national average of 0.720. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the institution is more prone than its national peers to practices that artificially inflate productivity. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often points to 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units. This high value serves as an alert that the institutional focus may be leaning towards volume over significant new knowledge, a practice that distorts scientific evidence and overburdens the review system.
