Liverpool Hope University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Liverpool Hope University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.288 indicating performance that is well-aligned with responsible research practices. The institution's primary strengths are evident in its exceptionally low rates of Hyperprolific Authorship, Redundant Output, and publication in its own journals, showcasing a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity and external validation. Furthermore, the University displays notable resilience, effectively mitigating national risk trends related to multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and impact dependency. The single point of significant concern is a medium-risk score for publications in discontinued journals, an anomaly that contrasts sharply with the national standard. Thematically, SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlights the University's strengths in Psychology, Computer Science, and Arts and Humanities. This strong integrity profile largely supports the institutional mission to pursue "Truth, Beauty and Goodness" through "scholarly dedication." However, the risk associated with discontinued journals directly challenges this ethos, as it implies a potential lack of due diligence that could undermine the "common good" by associating the University's work with low-quality channels. To fully align its operational practices with its foundational values, it is recommended that the University leverages its considerable strengths in research governance to implement targeted training and policies addressing the selection of publication venues.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.505, in contrast to the national average of 0.597. This demonstrates a commendable level of institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the United Kingdom's national trend suggests a moderate risk of these being used strategically to inflate institutional credit. Liverpool Hope University’s low-risk profile indicates that its affiliations are more likely to be the result of genuine scientific partnerships rather than "affiliation shopping," reflecting clear and well-governed collaboration policies.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.184, the institution maintains a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.088. This suggests that the University’s processes are managed with greater rigor than the national standard, even within a low-risk environment. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision and the correction of honest errors. However, an even lower rate than the national baseline points towards highly effective pre-publication quality control mechanisms. This performance indicates a strong integrity culture that successfully prevents the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that could otherwise lead to a higher volume of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.399, which, while low, is higher than the national average of -0.673. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it potentially escalates. A certain degree of self-citation is natural as it reflects the progression of specific research lines. However, a rate that is slightly elevated compared to the national context could be an early warning of developing scientific isolation or "echo chambers." It is advisable to monitor this trend to ensure the institution's academic influence continues to be validated by the broader global community rather than becoming inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

A Z-score of 0.526 places the institution at a medium-risk level, creating a monitoring alert as this is an unusual deviation from the national standard, which sits at a very low-risk Z-score of -0.436. This discrepancy requires a thorough review of its causes. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a segment of the University's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. This suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-integrity practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.945 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.587. This disparity highlights strong institutional resilience against a national trend of moderately high hyper-authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," their prevalence elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. Liverpool Hope University’s very low score suggests its authorship practices are transparent and well-defined, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the questionable practice of granting 'honorary' authorships.

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

With a Z-score of -0.597, the institution demonstrates robust internal capacity, contrasting with the national average of 0.147. This score reflects institutional resilience, as the University avoids the national tendency towards dependency on external collaborators for impact. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is exogenous and not built on its own structural capabilities. Liverpool Hope University’s negative gap indicates that its scientific excellence is the result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, a key marker of a sustainable and self-sufficient research ecosystem.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.043 signifies a very low-risk profile, consistent with and even stronger than the low-risk national standard of -0.155. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with national norms for responsible conduct. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The University’s exceptionally low score in this area indicates a healthy research environment where productivity is balanced with scientific rigor, reinforcing the integrity of its academic record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 achieves integrity synchrony with the national average of -0.262. This indicates total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. Over-reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. By mirroring the country's very low rate, Liverpool Hope University demonstrates a firm commitment to global academic standards, ensuring its research is validated through competitive, external channels and avoiding any perception of using internal journals as 'fast tracks' for publication.

Rate of Redundant Output

With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.186, the institution shows low-profile consistency, performing significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.155. The complete absence of risk signals in this area is in line with the national standard of good practice. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple publications to inflate output. The University's score demonstrates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of complete, coherent studies, thereby contributing significant new knowledge rather than distorting scientific evidence or overburdening the peer-review system.