| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.199 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.169 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.455 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.002 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.713 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.453 | -0.155 |
York St John University demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall low-risk score of -0.444. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in mitigating risks associated with dependency on external collaborations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals. These strengths indicate a culture of endogenous research leadership and careful selection of publication venues. The primary area for strategic attention is the Rate of Redundant Output, which presents a medium-level risk and deviates from the national norm. This specific vulnerability, if unaddressed, could subtly undermine the University's mission to "advance knowledge" by potentially prioritizing publication volume over substantive contribution. The institution's strong research positioning, particularly in its highest-ranked SCImago Institutions Rankings areas of Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Social Sciences, provides a solid foundation of academic excellence. By focusing on reinforcing best practices in research dissemination to address the identified risk, the University can ensure its operational integrity fully aligns with its stated commitment to fairness and the creation of genuine educational opportunities for all.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.199, contrasting with the national average of 0.597. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the University's low rate of multiple affiliations suggests its control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks that appear more prevalent at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University's contained profile indicates a successful avoidance of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.146, which is lower than the national average of -0.088, the institution exhibits a prudent profile in its publication practices. This suggests that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Although retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, a comparatively lower rate indicates that pre-publication review processes may be more effective at identifying and resolving potential methodological flaws or malpractice, thereby reducing the frequency of systemic failures that lead to post-publication withdrawal.
The institution's Z-score of -0.169, while in the low-risk category, is notably higher than the national average of -0.673, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the overall risk is low, the University shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this relative elevation compared to the national context could be an early indicator of an emerging 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work is validated internally more often than by the broader scientific community. Monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure that the institution's academic influence is driven by global recognition rather than endogamous dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.455 is almost identical to the national average of -0.436, demonstrating integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment in maintaining a very low rate of publication in discontinued journals reflects a shared commitment to maximum scientific security. It indicates that the institution, like its national peers, exercises a high degree of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality media. This practice protects the University from severe reputational risks and ensures research resources are not wasted.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.002, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.587. This difference highlights a strong institutional resilience against the national trend towards hyper-authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' the University's very low score outside these contexts suggests a culture where authorship is not inflated. This indicates that internal policies or norms effectively prevent the dilution of individual accountability and discourage 'honorary' or political authorship practices, ensuring transparency and responsibility in crediting contributions.
With a Z-score of -1.713, the institution shows a very low gap, distinguishing it from the national average of 0.147, which indicates a medium-level risk. This signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the University does not replicate the risk dynamics of dependency observed in its environment. A low gap is a strong indicator of sustainable, endogenous research capacity. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and built upon its own intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners in collaborations where it does not lead, thus ensuring its excellence metrics reflect real internal strength.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.155, demonstrating low-profile consistency. The complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even exceeds, the secure national standard. This indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research output, with a very low probability of practices such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This reinforces the integrity of the scientific record by prioritizing meaningful intellectual contribution over the pursuit of extreme publication volumes.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.262, indicating integrity synchrony. This shared commitment to a very low rate of publication in in-house journals is a positive sign. It demonstrates that the University, along with its national peers, prioritizes independent, external peer review over internal channels. This practice mitigates the risks of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest, ensuring that its scientific production is validated against global competitive standards rather than potentially being fast-tracked to inflate publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.453 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.155. This is the most significant risk signal for the University, as it shows a greater sensitivity to factors encouraging redundant publication than its national peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential practice of fragmenting a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer review system but can also distort the available scientific evidence, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This area warrants a review of internal incentives and publication guidelines.
