| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.608 | -0.526 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | -0.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.583 | -0.119 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.245 | 0.179 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.067 | 0.074 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.676 | -0.064 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.430 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.119 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.486 | -0.245 |
TED University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.387 that significantly outperforms the national average. The institution exhibits exceptional control over its research processes, showing very low to low risk across eight of the nine indicators, particularly in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. This strong foundation in ethical practices is a critical asset that directly supports the university's mission to be "transparent, accountable and trustworthy." Thematic strengths, evidenced by top national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings for Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Computer Science, are further bolstered by this culture of integrity. However, a single point of vulnerability exists in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which, while reflecting a systemic national pattern, is slightly more pronounced at the institutional level. This specific risk could undermine the mission's goal of "contributing to the world of science by generating new knowledge," as it associates the university's output with channels of questionable quality. By addressing this isolated issue, TED University can fully align its operational practices with its stated values, leveraging its outstanding integrity profile as a hallmark of true academic excellence and sustainable development.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.608, a value indicating lower risk than the national average of -0.526. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its affiliation processes with greater rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's controlled rate indicates a healthy and transparent approach to academic credit, effectively avoiding any signals of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional prestige.
With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution demonstrates a more favorable position compared to the national score of -0.173. This reflects a prudent and responsible management of its scientific record. Retractions can be complex, but a low rate like this one is a positive signal. It suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective, minimizing the occurrence of errors and reinforcing a culture of methodological rigor that aligns with responsible scientific supervision.
The institution's Z-score of -0.583 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.119, indicating a highly prudent profile in this area. This result suggests the university's research has strong external validation and is well-integrated into the global scientific community. By avoiding disproportionately high rates of self-citation, the institution successfully mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is a reflection of broad recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.245 is in the medium-risk category and slightly exceeds the national average of 0.179. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the university is more prone than its national peers to publishing in questionable venues. This rate constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid such low-quality practices.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -1.067, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.074. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. This low rate indicates a healthy culture of authorship, where individual accountability and transparency are maintained, effectively distinguishing the university's practices from the risk of author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships that can dilute scientific responsibility.
With a Z-score of -0.676, the institution shows a much stronger performance than the national average of -0.064. This prudent profile indicates that the impact of research led by the institution is robust and not dependent on external partners. A negative gap is a sign of high internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This result confirms that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from its own capabilities rather than a strategic reliance on collaborations where it does not hold a leadership role.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, well below the national Z-score of -0.430. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals surpasses the already low-risk national standard. This exceptionally low rate indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality, steering clear of the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. It suggests that the university fosters an environment that prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over metrics, thereby avoiding practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution has a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, which contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.119. This significant difference points to a dynamic of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk patterns observed in its national environment. This practice demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.486 places it in the very low-risk category, performing better than the national average of -0.245. This reflects a low-profile consistency, with the absence of risk signals being even more pronounced than the national standard. This very low rate indicates that the university's researchers prioritize the publication of coherent, significant studies over artificially inflating productivity. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific record by avoiding data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' which can distort available evidence and overburden the peer-review system.
