Keele University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Keele University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.030 that signifies strong alignment with best practices in research conduct. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in several key areas, maintaining very low-risk levels for the Rate of Retracted Output, Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. These results underscore a culture of rigorous quality control and a commitment to high-calibre dissemination channels. This solid foundation in research integrity directly supports the University's thematic strengths, as evidenced by its high national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, Chemistry, and Medicine. However, to fully align with its mission of advancing "independent, high quality research," strategic attention is warranted for the medium-risk indicators, specifically the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, which deviates from the national norm, and the Rate of Multiple Affiliations. Addressing these vulnerabilities will ensure that the University's pursuit of excellence and social responsibility is not compromised by practices that could prioritize metrics over substantive scientific contribution, thereby reinforcing its leadership position and commitment to a healthy and sustainable research environment.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.925, while the national average for the United Kingdom is 0.597. Both the University and the country fall within a medium-risk band for this indicator, but the institution's rate is notably higher than the national average. This suggests that the University is more exposed to the factors driving this practice than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate signals a need to verify that these collaborations are consistently substantive. It is crucial to ensure that this trend does not drift towards strategic "affiliation shopping" intended to artificially inflate institutional credit, but rather reflects genuine, high-value collaborative research in line with the University's mission.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the United Kingdom's already low-risk national average of -0.088. This near-absence of risk signals reflects a highly effective system of institutional governance and quality control. Such a result is a strong indicator of responsible supervision and robust pre-publication review processes. Rather than being a sign of systemic failure, this performance suggests that the University's integrity culture successfully prevents methodological or ethical issues from escalating, thereby safeguarding its scientific record and reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.515, a low-risk value that is slightly higher than the national average of -0.673. This subtle difference, while still within a safe range, points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants observation. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this minor signal serves as a reminder to encourage broad external engagement and peer review. Proactive monitoring can prevent the development of "echo chambers" where the institution's work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, ensuring its academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.339 is in the very low-risk category, closely tracking the national average of -0.436. Although the University's score shows a marginal, almost negligible signal in what is a nationally inert environment, the risk remains minimal. This residual noise does not indicate a problem but highlights the sensitivity of the monitoring system. It confirms that the institution's researchers are overwhelmingly selecting credible and stable publication venues, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals and upholding the University's commitment to high-quality academic enquiry.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.513, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is in the medium-risk range, but it is notably lower than the national average of 0.587. This indicates a pattern of differentiated management, where the University appears to be successfully moderating a risk that is more common across the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," this controlled performance suggests the institution is effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and practices like "honorary" authorship. This proactive stance helps maintain individual accountability and transparency in authorship, which is fundamental to research integrity.

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

Keele University shows a Z-score of -0.504, a low-risk value that signals strong internal research capacity. This performance is particularly noteworthy when contrasted with the United Kingdom's medium-risk national average of 0.147, which suggests a broader systemic reliance on external partners for impact. The University's result demonstrates institutional resilience, acting as a firewall against this national trend. It indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon real internal capacity and intellectual leadership rather than being dependent on a strategic position in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 1.509 places it in the medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.155. This discrepancy suggests the University has a greater sensitivity to risk factors encouraging hyperprolificity than its national peers, warranting a review of its causes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This alert points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality and highlights the risk of practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, which could undermine the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.262, with both firmly in the very low-risk category. This demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This result confirms that the institution is not dependent on its own journals for publication, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By consistently seeking independent external peer review through non-institutional channels, the University reinforces its commitment to competitive validation and global visibility for its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.610, the institution displays a very low-risk profile for redundant output, performing significantly better than the United Kingdom's low-risk national average of -0.155. This low-profile consistency indicates that the University's research culture strongly discourages data fragmentation or "salami slicing." The near-total absence of this practice suggests that researchers are focused on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by dividing work into minimal publishable units. This approach strengthens the scientific evidence base and reflects a commitment to producing impactful knowledge over sheer volume.