| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.651 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.792 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.013 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.108 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.290 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.344 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.212 | 0.027 |
The University of South Florida System demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.242 indicating performance that is stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in its own journals, signaling a culture that prioritizes external validation and global engagement. Furthermore, the university shows significant resilience, maintaining low-risk profiles for hyper-authorship and redundant output, in contrast to higher-risk trends observed at the national level. However, two areas warrant strategic attention: a medium-risk signal for output in discontinued journals, which suggests a need for enhanced due diligence in publication channel selection, and a moderate gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly notable in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, Physics and Astronomy, and Psychology. To fully align with its mission to "deliver competitive... programs" and "generate knowledge... in a global environment," it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. Publishing in discontinued journals and depending on external leadership for impact can undermine the institution's global competitiveness and its capacity for fostering internal intellectual development. By focusing on these areas, the University of South Florida System can further solidify its reputation for excellence and responsible research conduct.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.651, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.514. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to author affiliations, showing more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate suggests that the university effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or practices of “affiliation shopping,” thereby maintaining clarity and transparency in its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution's rate of retracted output is lower than the national average of -0.126. This prudent profile suggests that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a lower-than-average rate points toward effective pre-publication review processes that successfully identify and correct potential errors, reinforcing the integrity and reliability of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.792, a very low value that contrasts with the national average of -0.566. This demonstrates a high degree of low-profile consistency, where the near-total absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this exceptionally low rate confirms that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community, not confined to an internal 'echo chamber.' This avoids any perception of endogamous impact inflation and underscores the global recognition of its research.
A Z-score of 0.013 for the institution marks a significant monitoring alert, as it is an unusually high risk level compared to the national standard, which sits at a very low -0.415. This discrepancy requires a review of its causes. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.108, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.594. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, this low score indicates that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution's Z-score of 0.290 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.284, indicating that its performance reflects a systemic pattern common at the national level. This value suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be partially dependent on external partners rather than being fully structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could pose a long-term sustainability risk.
With a Z-score of -0.344, the institution shows a lower incidence of hyperprolific authors compared to the national average of -0.275. This prudent profile suggests that the university manages its research environment with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, an extremely low rate of hyperprolificacy indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, and prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, reflecting a near-total absence of this risk practice and performing even better than the already very low national average of -0.220. This signals total operational silence on this front. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to independent, external peer review ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.212 is notably lower than the national average of 0.027. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate a risk that is more prevalent in the national system. A low rate of redundant output indicates that the university successfully discourages the practice of fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This focus on publishing significant, coherent bodies of work reinforces the quality of the scientific evidence it produces and respects the academic review system.
