| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.928 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.212 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.416 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.483 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.877 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.743 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.535 | -0.155 |
St Mary's University, Twickenham, demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.414. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in maintaining genuine intellectual leadership, ensuring ethical publication choices, and fostering a healthy balance between productivity and quality. These strengths are particularly evident in its very low-risk indicators for the impact gap from leadership, output in discontinued journals, and rates of hyperprolific authorship and redundant output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key thematic areas include Psychology, Medicine, and Arts and Humanities. However, a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is higher than the national average, requires strategic attention. This specific vulnerability could potentially conflict with the university's mission to "empower our community to have a positive impact on the world," as authentic impact relies on transparent and unambiguous contributions. By continuing to cultivate its evident culture of integrity while proactively managing its exposure to affiliation risks, the university is well-positioned to fully align its operational practices with its core values of holistic development and positive global influence.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.928, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.597. This value indicates that the university has a higher exposure to this particular risk factor compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate suggests a need for internal review to ensure all affiliations are substantive and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university should verify that its collaborative patterns are driven by genuine scientific partnership rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding its academic reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.212, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile that is more rigorous than the national standard (-0.088). This lower-than-average rate suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors, and this controlled rate indicates that such events are managed responsibly without pointing to systemic failures in methodological rigor or the institution's integrity culture.
The institution's Z-score of -0.416, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.673, signaling an incipient vulnerability. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this slight elevation warrants monitoring to ensure it does not evolve into a scientific "echo chamber" where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. Continued observation is recommended to confirm that the institution's academic influence remains driven by global community recognition rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The university shows total operational silence in this area, with a Z-score of -0.483 that is even lower than the country's already minimal average of -0.436. This absence of risk signals demonstrates an exemplary commitment to due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the university from the severe reputational risks associated with "predatory" or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution displays significant resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.877 in a national context that shows a medium-risk tendency (0.587). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms act as an effective filter against systemic national risks. While extensive author lists can be legitimate in "Big Science," the university's low score indicates it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like "honorary" authorship, thus preserving transparency and individual accountability in its research outputs.
A state of preventive isolation is observed, with the institution's very low-risk Z-score of -1.743 contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.147. This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of dependency seen elsewhere in the country. The data strongly suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and derives from genuine internal capacity, not from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This robust internal foundation mitigates any sustainability risk associated with an impact that is dependent and exogenous.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -1.413 reflecting a complete absence of risk signals in an already low-risk national environment (-0.155). This lack of extreme individual publication volumes points to a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality. It confirms that the university is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record and prioritizing meaningful intellectual contribution over raw metrics.
A perfect integrity synchrony is evident, as the institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.262. This alignment with a secure environment of maximum scientific security shows that the university does not depend on in-house journals for dissemination. By avoiding this practice, the institution circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and is validated competitively within the global academic community.
The university maintains a very low-risk profile (Z-score: -0.535) that is fully consistent with the national standard of integrity (Z-score: -0.155). This absence of risk signals indicates that the institution is not engaged in data fragmentation or "salami slicing" to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This commitment to publishing coherent and complete studies underscores a focus on generating significant new knowledge over prioritizing volume, thereby respecting the scientific evidence base and the academic review system.
