| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.114 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.178 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.202 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.067 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.123 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.021 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.170 | -0.155 |
Liverpool John Moores University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.052 that indicates a performance well-aligned with national and international standards of good practice. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining a very low rate of output in its own journals and a lower-than-average rate of retracted publications, signaling effective quality control and a commitment to external validation. Areas for strategic attention include a medium-risk, high-exposure rate of multiple affiliations and an incipient vulnerability in institutional self-citation, which warrant review to ensure they reflect genuine collaboration rather than metric-driven pressures. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these operational indicators support a strong academic reputation, with notable national rankings in key areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (29th), Chemistry (34th), and Mathematics (41st). This solid integrity foundation is crucial to the university's mission as a "forward thinking institution" and its "One University" concept. Addressing the identified vulnerabilities will be key to ensuring that collaborative practices genuinely reinforce the institutional community and that its pursuit of "student-centered objectives" is built upon research of the highest quality and ethical rigor, thereby strengthening its forward-thinking identity.
The institution's Z-score of 1.114 is notably higher than the national average of 0.597, indicating that the university is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's elevated rate warrants a review. This high exposure could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” which would dilute the concept of a unified institutional identity and misrepresent the university's research footprint.
The university demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.287, which is below the national average of -0.088. This suggests that the institution manages its quality control processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively, minimizing the incidence of errors or malpractice that could lead to retractions and safeguarding its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.178, the university shows a higher rate of institutional self-citation compared to the national average of -0.673. This points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While a certain level of self-citation is natural as it reflects the continuity of established research lines, this deviation from the national norm could signal the early formation of 'echo chambers'. Continued monitoring is advisable to prevent the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring the institution's academic influence is driven by global community recognition rather than internal dynamics.
The university's Z-score of -0.202 indicates a slight divergence from the national context, where the average is -0.436. This suggests the institution is showing minor signals of risk activity in an area where the country as a whole shows virtually none. This rate constitutes a low-level alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a small portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, suggesting a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid reputational risks and the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.067 is significantly lower than the national average of 0.587, demonstrating differentiated management of this risk. This indicates the university successfully moderates the trend of hyper-authorship that appears more common across the country. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution mitigates the risk of author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. This prudent approach helps ensure that authorship reflects meaningful contributions rather than 'honorary' or political practices.
The university's Z-score of 0.123 is very close to the national average of 0.147, indicating that its performance reflects a systemic pattern common throughout the country's research ecosystem. This gap suggests a degree of dependency on external partners for impact, a common dynamic for many institutions. However, it signals a potential sustainability risk where scientific prestige is somewhat dependent and exogenous. This invites reflection on strategies to build more structural, internal capacity, ensuring that excellence metrics result increasingly from the institution's own intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of -0.021, while low, is higher than the national average of -0.155, signaling an incipient vulnerability in this area. This suggests the institution shows early signals of hyperprolificacy that warrant review before they escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as a gentle alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality and the associated risks of coercive authorship or assigning authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific record integrity.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.262. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, reflecting a shared national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. The very low rate of publication in its own journals indicates that the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By prioritizing independent external peer review, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The university's Z-score of -0.170 is statistically normal for its context, closely mirroring the national average of -0.155. This indicates that the institution's rate of bibliographic overlap between publications is as expected and does not signal a significant risk. This alignment suggests that the university's researchers are adhering to standard practices of citing previous work for cumulative knowledge, without engaging in data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity and distort the scientific record.
