| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.172 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.287 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.968 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.446 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.946 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.525 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.681 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.297 | -0.155 |
The University of Dundee demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.243 indicating performance that is healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its commitment to external validation and quality control, evidenced by very low risk levels in institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued or institutional journals. These results reflect a culture of rigorous external peer review and responsible dissemination. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high exposure to hyper-authorship and a significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These medium-risk signals, while not critical, could challenge the University's mission to "transform lives... through the creation, sharing and application of knowledge" by suggesting a potential dependency on external leadership and a dilution of individual accountability in collaborative outputs. The institution's excellence is clearly reflected in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in high-impact fields such as Chemistry (UK Top 10), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (UK Top 10), and Dentistry (UK Top 10). To fully align its operational integrity with its mission and research strengths, it is recommended that the University reviews its collaboration and authorship policies to ensure that its recognized impact is increasingly driven by its own structural capacity and leadership.
The University of Dundee presents a Z-score of 0.172, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.597. Although this indicator falls within a medium-risk band for both the institution and the country, the University's more moderate score suggests it has differentiated management practices that effectively temper a risk dynamic common in its national environment. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University's ability to maintain a lower rate than its national peers indicates a degree of control that helps ensure affiliations reflect genuine collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of its institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.287, the University exhibits a lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of -0.088. This prudent profile suggests that the institution manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting honest errors, a consistently low rate is a strong indicator of effective pre-publication quality control. This result points to a healthy integrity culture where potential methodological flaws or malpractice are likely identified and addressed internally, preventing systemic failures and reinforcing the reliability of the University's scientific output.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.968, a very low value that is even more favorable than the United Kingdom's low-risk average of -0.673. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the near-total absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University's extremely low rate strongly indicates that its research is validated by the broader international community, not confined to an internal 'echo chamber.' This result confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on global recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous or isolated citation dynamics.
The University of Dundee's Z-score of -0.446 is almost identical to the national average of -0.436, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in publication choices. A high proportion of output in such journals would constitute a critical alert regarding due diligence, but this score confirms the opposite. It indicates that the institution's researchers are effectively navigating the publishing landscape, avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards and thereby protecting the University from the reputational and resource risks associated with 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of 0.946, the University shows a higher incidence of hyper-authored publications than the national average of 0.587. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk factor, suggesting the institution is more prone to this practice than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' disciplines, a high Z-score outside these contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This elevated signal serves as a prompt for the institution to analyze its collaborative patterns and ensure they represent necessary massive collaboration rather than 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could undermine research integrity.
The University's Z-score of 0.525 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.147, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This wide positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is high, the impact of research led by its own authors is comparatively low, pointing to a potential sustainability risk. This disparity suggests that the University's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a reliance on external partners.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.681, a value significantly lower than the national average of -0.155. This prudent profile indicates that the University's processes and culture are more rigorous in this regard than the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's very low score in this area is a positive sign, suggesting a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality and an environment that is not conducive to risks like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the University's performance is in close alignment with the national average of -0.262, both of which are in the very low-risk category. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment at both institutional and national levels to external validation. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy. The University's negligible rate of publication in its own journals confirms its reliance on independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research and avoids the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The University of Dundee has a Z-score of -0.297, which is lower than the United Kingdom's average of -0.155. This prudent profile suggests the institution manages its publication ethics with greater rigor than the national standard. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented to inflate productivity. The University's lower-than-average score indicates a commendable focus on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than minimal publishable units. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific record and demonstrates a commitment to producing new knowledge of substance over mere volume.
