| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.338 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.027 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.209 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.714 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.644 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.856 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.190 | -0.155 |
The University of Teesside demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.442 that significantly outperforms national benchmarks. This robust performance is characterized by a consistent and effective mitigation of systemic risks prevalent in the wider academic environment, particularly in areas such as multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and impact dependency. The institution's strengths are most evident in its near-zero rates of retracted output and institutional self-citation, underscoring a culture of rigorous quality control and external validation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, this foundation of integrity supports notable research excellence in key thematic areas, including top-tier national rankings in Physics and Astronomy, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. This commitment to ethical research practices directly aligns with the university's mission to generate and apply knowledge for societal success. By ensuring its research is reliable and transparent, the University of Teesside solidifies its capacity to transform lives and economies through innovation and engagement, making its strong integrity culture a core asset for future strategic growth and reputational enhancement.
With a Z-score of -0.338, the University of Teesside shows a significantly lower rate of multiple affiliations compared to the national average of 0.597. This demonstrates a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk that is more systemic across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university’s prudent profile indicates it successfully avoids the national trend towards strategic "affiliation shopping" or the inflation of institutional credit, thereby maintaining clarity and transparency in its collaborative footprint.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.418, a value indicating a near-total absence of this risk signal and placing it well below the already low national average of -0.088. This low-profile consistency reflects a strong alignment with the highest national standards for research quality. The data suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are exceptionally robust. This proactive approach to integrity prevents the systemic failures in methodological rigor or potential malpractice that can lead to retractions, safeguarding the institution's scientific record and reputation.
The University of Teesside exhibits an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.027, far below the national average of -0.673. This result points to a healthy and outward-looking research culture that is well-integrated into the global scientific community. The institution's performance indicates a strong pattern of external validation, successfully avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers'. This ensures that its academic influence is a reflection of broad recognition from the international community rather than being artificially inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.209 for publications in discontinued journals, which, while low, marks a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.436, where such activity is virtually non-existent. This minor deviation suggests the emergence of a risk signal not typically seen in the rest of the country. It serves as a reminder of the critical importance of maintaining rigorous due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Enhancing information literacy for researchers is key to ensuring that scientific output is not channeled through media failing to meet international ethical standards, thus preventing exposure to reputational risks from 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -0.714, the university effectively contains the practice of hyper-authorship, a risk that is significantly more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 0.587). This suggests the institution acts as a resilient filter against a broader systemic trend. The university's approach appears to successfully distinguish between necessary, large-scale scientific collaboration and the dilutive effects of author list inflation. This fosters a culture of meaningful contribution and accountability, resisting the national tendency towards 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The University of Teesside demonstrates a Z-score of -0.644, indicating a very healthy and narrow gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, especially when compared to the national average of 0.147. This reflects strong institutional resilience against impact dependency. The result suggests that the university's scientific prestige is built upon a solid foundation of internal capacity and genuine intellectual leadership, rather than being an exogenous prestige derived from collaborations where it does not lead. This points to a sustainable and structurally sound model for achieving research excellence.
The institution maintains a prudent profile regarding hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -0.856 that is substantially lower than the national average of -0.155. This indicates that the university manages its research processes with greater rigor than the national standard. This controlled environment suggests a focus on the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume. By discouraging extreme individual productivity that challenges the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university's publication rate in its own journals is in almost perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.262. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security demonstrates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding reliance on internal channels, the institution circumvents potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation and achieves global visibility.
The university's rate of redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.190, is in line with the national average of -0.155, indicating a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. This alignment suggests that there is no systemic pattern of 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. The institution's publication behavior reflects a standard and appropriate approach to building upon previous work, prioritizing the generation of significant new knowledge.
