Queen Mary, University of London

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Queen Mary, University of London presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.102. The institution demonstrates exceptional control in critical areas such as institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued or institutional journals, and the management of retractions and redundant output, indicating strong internal governance and quality assurance. Areas for strategic attention include the rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, and hyperprolific authors, which show a moderate level of risk exposure. This solid integrity foundation supports its outstanding academic performance, as evidenced by its Top 10 national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings thematic areas, including Dentistry, Engineering, Computer Science, and Mathematics. The institution's mission to "generate new knowledge... to create a better world" is well-served by its low-risk profile in most areas; however, the observed vulnerabilities in authorship and affiliation practices could, if unaddressed, challenge the transparency and meritocratic principles essential to this public good mission. By proactively reviewing and refining policies related to authorship and affiliation, Queen Mary can further enhance its reputation for excellence and ensure its operational practices are in complete alignment with its core values of integrity and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.950 for this indicator is notably higher than the national average of 0.597. This suggests that the university is more prone to practices leading to multiple affiliations than its national peers, reflecting a pattern of high exposure to this particular risk. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships between universities and teaching hospitals, this elevated rate signals a need for review. It may indicate strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the perceived contribution of the university and requires closer monitoring to ensure all affiliations are transparent and justified.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution demonstrates a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.088. This prudent profile suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can result from the honest correction of unintentional errors, but a lower-than-average rate indicates that systemic failures in pre-publication review are successfully being avoided, reinforcing the institution's commitment to a robust culture of integrity and methodological rigor.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.864, which is not only in the very low-risk category but also below the country's low-risk average of -0.673. This demonstrates a commendable absence of risk signals that aligns well with the national standard for open scientific dialogue. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution avoids the 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation that can arise from excessive self-validation, ensuring its academic influence is driven by genuine recognition from the global community rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.432 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.436, indicating a complete alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This integrity synchrony shows that the university's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals would be a critical alert for reputational risk, but this score confirms that scientific production is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, protecting institutional resources from 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

At 0.870, the institution's Z-score for hyper-authored output is significantly higher than the national average of 0.587. This indicates a high exposure to this risk, suggesting the university is more prone to publishing works with extensive author lists than its peers. While extensive author lists are structural and legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high rate outside these fields can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This serves as a signal for the institution to ensure that its authorship practices distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorships that compromise transparency.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.235, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.147. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A very wide positive gap would suggest that prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. This negative score, however, indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is robust, signaling a sustainable and structural scientific prestige built on genuine internal leadership and capability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 0.317 represents a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk -0.155. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with hyperprolificity than its peers. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is in perfect alignment with the national average of -0.262. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. While in-house journals are valuable for training, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. This very low score confirms that the institution is not using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts, instead ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.416 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.155, reflecting a prudent profile in managing publication redundancy. This indicates that the university's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This low score suggests a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over volume, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoiding overburdening the review system.