| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.311 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.034 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.329 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.066 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.072 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.240 | -0.155 |
The University of Abertay Dundee demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.444 indicating performance significantly stronger than the global average. This is primarily driven by exceptional results in key areas of research practice. The institution exhibits very low risk in Institutional Self-Citation, the Gap between total and led impact, the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, signaling a culture of external validation, sustainable impact, and responsible authorship. Areas requiring strategic attention include a medium rate of Multiple Affiliations and Redundant Output, which, while managed better than or deviating moderately from national trends, represent the institution's main vulnerabilities. These strong integrity metrics provide a solid foundation for the university's recognized thematic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in Business, Management and Accounting, Psychology, and Social Sciences. This commitment to ethical research directly supports the institutional mission to have a "positive impact on the world," as sound science is the bedrock of meaningful societal contribution. The identified risks, particularly around redundant publication, could threaten this mission by prioritizing volume over substance, contradicting the goal of enabling staff and students to "achieve their full potential." By addressing these minor vulnerabilities, the University can further solidify its reputation for excellence and ensure its research practices are fully aligned with its transformational and socially responsible vision.
The institution's Z-score of 0.311 indicates a medium rate of multiple affiliations, a finding that is consistent with the national context in the United Kingdom (Z-score: 0.597). However, the university's rate is considerably lower than the national average, suggesting a differentiated and more controlled management of a common practice within its environment. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this moderated approach helps mitigate the risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting effective internal governance.
With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution displays a low rate of retracted output, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.088). This prudent profile suggests that institutional quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. A rate significantly below the average is a positive sign of a healthy integrity culture, indicating that systemic failures or recurring malpractice are not present and that supervision is responsible and diligent.
The institution exhibits a very low Z-score of -1.034, a result that aligns with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.673). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a commendable absence of risk signals. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms that the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It provides strong evidence that the university's academic influence is driven by genuine recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.329 reflects a low rate of publication in discontinued journals. However, this represents a slight divergence from the national context, where this risk is almost non-existent (Z-score: -0.436). This finding points to minor but detectable signals of risk activity that are not apparent in the rest of the country. While the overall incidence is low, it serves as a critical alert regarding the need for consistent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels to avoid the reputational and resource risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.066, the institution shows a low rate of hyper-authored publications, demonstrating notable resilience against a systemic risk that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.587). This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms act as an effective filter. By maintaining this low rate, the university successfully avoids the potential for author list inflation, ensuring that individual accountability and transparency are preserved and distinguishing necessary large-scale collaboration from questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.072 is in the very low-risk category, indicating a preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed across the country (Z-score: 0.147). This result is a powerful indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. A narrow gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, not dependent on external partners. This reflects a true internal capacity for excellence and confirms that its high-impact research is a result of its own intellectual leadership.
The institution presents a very low Z-score of -1.413, a figure that is consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.155). This absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors is a sign of a healthy research environment. It indicates a culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume, thereby avoiding the potential imbalances and integrity risks—such as coercive or unearned authorship—that can be associated with extreme individual publication rates.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is very low and in near-perfect alignment with the national average (Z-score: -0.262). This integrity synchrony demonstrates that the institution operates with maximum scientific security in this area. By eschewing internal journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances global visibility and reinforces the credibility of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.240 places it in the medium-risk category for redundant output, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.155). This indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This value serves as an alert for the potential practice of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' where a study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic warrants review to ensure that all publications represent significant new knowledge and do not distort the scientific evidence base.
