Teerthanker Mahaveer University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Teerthanker Mahaveer University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, demonstrating exceptional control in multiple areas while facing critical challenges in others, reflected in an overall score of 0.631. The institution exhibits robust governance with very low risk in rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and publication in its own journals. These strengths form a solid foundation of ethical practice. However, this is contrasted by significant risks in the rates of retracted output and publications in discontinued journals, which pose a direct threat to the university's mission "to impart knowledge and develop critical skills necessary to succeed... supported by world-class faculty... and collaborative teaching and research with premier institutions." These high-risk indicators undermine the "world-class" aspiration and could damage collaborations. The university's strong academic positioning, particularly in thematic areas like Dentistry (ranked 18th in India), Medicine (113th), Energy (196th), and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (197th) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, provides a platform of excellence that must be protected. To fully align its research practices with its ambitious mission, the university should leverage its foundational strengths to implement targeted interventions that address its key vulnerabilities, particularly in pre-publication quality control and journal selection strategies.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With an institutional Z-score of -1.580 compared to the national average of -0.927, Teerthanker Mahaveer University shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, performing even better than the low-risk national standard. This indicates total operational silence regarding the strategic inflation of institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” The data suggests that the university's affiliations are transparent and reflect legitimate collaborations, reinforcing a culture of clear and honest academic credit attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

The university's Z-score of 1.019 for retracted publications is a significant concern, especially when compared to the national Z-score of 0.279. This finding suggests that the institution is not merely reflecting a national vulnerability but is actively amplifying it. A high rate of retractions points to a systemic failure in quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This indicator serves as a critical alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates exemplary performance with a Z-score of -0.921, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.520, which indicates a medium risk level. This result shows a clear preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. Such a low rate of self-citation is a strong positive signal, indicating that the institution's academic influence is validated by the global scientific community rather than being inflated by internal 'echo chambers', thereby ensuring its work is subject to sufficient external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 3.813, the university shows a critical risk level in publishing in discontinued journals, significantly amplifying the medium-risk trend seen at the national level (Z-score 1.099). This constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The data indicates that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university's Z-score of -1.321 is well below the national average of -1.024, placing it in the very low-risk category while the country is at a low-risk level. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. The data suggests that the institution's authorship practices are well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and the risk of 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.182, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.292. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. A wider positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where scientific prestige is overly dependent on external partners rather than on internal capacity. While collaboration is positive, this signal invites reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics are derived from its own structural capabilities or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the university shows a very low risk of hyperprolific authorship, a significantly better performance than the national low-risk average of -0.067. This indicates a healthy balance between productivity and scientific quality. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This low-profile consistency reinforces an environment where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 is slightly below the national average of -0.250, with both positioned in the very low-risk category. This indicates a total operational silence in this area, with the institution showing an absence of risk signals even below the national baseline. This performance mitigates any concerns about academic endogamy or conflicts of interest where an institution might act as both judge and party. It confirms that the university's scientific production overwhelmingly undergoes independent external peer review, ensuring its validation by the global community and enhancing its visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.200 for redundant output, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 0.720. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university effectively moderates a risk that appears to be more common nationally. Although the signal is present, the institution shows better control over practices like 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity. This proactive management helps protect the integrity of the scientific evidence and reduces the burden on the peer-review system.