| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.545 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.230 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.682 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.413 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.571 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.054 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.021 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.071 | -0.155 |
Queen's University Belfast demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.128 indicating performance that is slightly better than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its rigorous selection of publication venues, evidenced by very low risk scores for output in discontinued or institutional journals, and a prudent management of retractions, which is below the national average. However, areas requiring strategic attention emerge in authorship and collaboration patterns, with medium-level risks identified in hyper-authorship, hyper-prolificacy, and multiple affiliations. These signals, particularly the moderate deviation from the national norm in the rate of hyperprolific authors, suggest a potential tension between productivity pressures and research quality. This operational profile supports the institution's strong academic standing, reflected in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top-tier national positions in key areas such as Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (4th in the UK), Energy (11th), Dentistry (12th), and Veterinary (12th). To fully align its practices with a mission of excellence and social responsibility, it is crucial to address these authorship-related vulnerabilities, ensuring that its collaborative and productivity metrics genuinely reflect sound, transparent, and sustainable research practices. A proactive review of authorship policies would further solidify its position as a leader in both research output and scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 0.545 is situated within a national context where the average is 0.597. This indicates that while the practice is present at a medium-risk level system-wide, the university demonstrates differentiated management, moderating a risk that appears common throughout the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this score suggests a need for continued oversight. The university's ability to maintain a rate below the national average points to effective policies, but the medium level still warrants attention to ensure these affiliations are strategically sound and not primarily used to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.230, the institution displays a more prudent profile regarding retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.088. This suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, sometimes signifying responsible error correction. However, a consistently low rate, especially one that outperforms the national context, is a strong positive signal. It indicates that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust, effectively minimizing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retractions and subsequent reputational damage.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.682, a value that aligns closely with the national average of -0.673. This reflects a state of statistical normality, where the risk level is as expected for its context and size. A certain degree of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuation of established research lines. The alignment with the national figure suggests that the university is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber' and its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny, avoiding the endogamous impact inflation that can occur when an institution's influence is oversized by internal validation rather than global community recognition.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.413, demonstrating integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has an average score of -0.436. This total alignment in a very low-risk area signifies a shared commitment to maximum scientific security in publication choices. This indicator is a critical alert for due diligence, and the university's excellent performance confirms that its scientific production is not being channeled through media failing to meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the institution from severe reputational risks and shows a high level of information literacy among its researchers, avoiding the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of 0.571, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output reflects a systemic pattern, as it is nearly identical to the national average of 0.587. This alignment suggests that the university's practices are shaped by shared disciplinary norms or research policies at a national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a medium-risk score across the board serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' authorship. It highlights a need for clear institutional guidelines to ensure that author lists accurately reflect meaningful contributions, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency.
The institution records a Z-score of 0.054 in this indicator, significantly lower than the national average of 0.147. This demonstrates differentiated management, as the university effectively moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. The university's lower score suggests a healthier balance, indicating that its scientific excellence is more closely tied to research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This points toward a more sustainable model of impact, built on genuine internal capabilities rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of 0.021 for hyperprolific authors marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, where the average is a low-risk -0.155. This discrepancy indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This alert warrants a review of internal academic pressures and authorship criteria to mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, ensuring that productivity metrics do not compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in integrity synchrony with the national average of -0.262. This alignment at a very low-risk level indicates a shared environment of maximum scientific security and a commitment to external validation. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns. The university's minimal reliance on such channels confirms that its scientific production overwhelmingly undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and avoids the risk of using internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.071 reveals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.155. Although both scores are in the low-risk category, the university shows signals that are slightly more pronounced than its peers and warrant review before they escalate. This indicator tracks massive bibliographic overlap, which often points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. While the current level is not alarming, this slight elevation suggests a need to reinforce academic norms that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
