| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.072 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.174 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.232 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.381 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.802 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.171 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.898 | -0.155 |
Roehampton University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.445 that indicates performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance across multiple indicators, showing a near-total absence of risk signals in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and Redundant Output. This highlights a mature research culture focused on external validation and substantive contributions. The only indicator registering a moderate signal is the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, yet even here, the university's management is notably more conservative than the national trend. This strong integrity framework provides a solid foundation for the university's academic strengths, particularly in its highest-ranked fields according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which include Psychology, Arts and Humanities, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. Although the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, this demonstrated commitment to ethical research practices is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving any mission centered on academic excellence and social responsibility. The university is encouraged to leverage this outstanding integrity profile as a strategic asset to attract talent, foster reliable collaborations, and reinforce its reputation as a trustworthy and high-quality academic institution.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.072, which, while indicating a medium level of activity, is significantly more controlled than the national average of 0.597. This suggests that Roehampton University has implemented differentiated management policies that effectively moderate a risk that is more pronounced at the national level. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's ability to maintain a lower rate than its peers points to a successful effort in preventing strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed with appropriate justification, a practice that appears more common across the country.
With a Z-score of -0.174, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, performing with greater rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.088). This low rate is a positive signal, suggesting that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. While retractions can sometimes result from the honest correction of errors, a rate significantly below the norm indicates a strong institutional integrity culture that successfully minimizes the risk of systemic methodological failures or recurring malpractice that would otherwise require post-publication correction.
The university exhibits an exceptionally low-risk profile in institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.232 that is well below the already low-risk national average of -0.673. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a high degree of integration with the global scientific community and aligns perfectly with a national environment that also values external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's outstanding performance confirms that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the international community, successfully avoiding the "echo chambers" or endogamous impact inflation that can arise from an over-reliance on citing its own work.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is minimal (Z-score: -0.381), placing it in a very low-risk category that is consistent with the national context (Z-score: -0.436). The university's score, being slightly higher than the country's, represents a faint, residual signal in an otherwise inert environment. This minor deviation is not an alarm but an opportunity to further enhance information literacy and reinforce due diligence in the selection of publication venues. Ensuring all output is channeled through reputable media is crucial for protecting the institution from reputational risks associated with "predatory" or low-quality practices.
Roehampton University demonstrates notable institutional resilience, maintaining a low-risk Z-score of -0.802 for hyper-authored output, in sharp contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.587. This indicates that the university's internal governance and authorship policies act as an effective filter against a systemic risk prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are standard in "Big Science," the institution's controlled rate in other fields suggests a successful culture of promoting genuine contribution and individual accountability, thereby mitigating the risk of author list inflation and "honorary" authorships.
The institution displays a healthy and sustainable research model, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.171, indicating a strong balance between its overall collaborative impact and the impact generated by research under its direct leadership. This performance shows institutional resilience, particularly when compared to the national average (Z-score: 0.147), which points to a medium-level risk of impact dependency. The university's profile suggests its scientific prestige is structural and derived from genuine internal capacity, successfully avoiding the risk that excellence metrics become overly dependent on collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413, the university shows a near-total absence of risks associated with hyperprolific authorship, performing significantly better than the low-risk national standard (-0.155). This low-profile consistency reflects a research environment that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. The data confirms that the institution has effectively mitigated the risks of coercive authorship or credit being assigned without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record and fostering a sustainable and ethical academic culture.
The university's practices regarding its own journals are in perfect synchrony with the secure national environment, as shown by its very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, which is statistically identical to the country's average (-0.262). This total alignment demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding over-reliance on in-house publications, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy, ensuring its research output is validated through competitive global channels rather than potentially being fast-tracked internally.
The institution demonstrates exemplary control over publication practices, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.898 for redundant output, a figure that is substantially stronger than the national benchmark (-0.155). This consistent, low-profile performance indicates a mature research culture that discourages "salami slicing"—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to inflate output metrics. By prioritizing significant, coherent contributions, the university upholds the integrity of the scientific record and ensures its research adds substantive value to the academic community.
