| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.702 | 0.189 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.004 | -0.138 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.768 | -0.160 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.667 | 0.177 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.247 | -0.469 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.081 | 0.556 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.020 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.133 | -0.667 |
Kumasi Technical University presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.067 indicating a performance aligned with the global baseline. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, reflecting robust internal governance in these areas. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a higher-than-average exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and multiple affiliations, alongside a moderate deviation in retracted output compared to the national standard. These vulnerabilities contrast with the University's strong positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, including top-10 national rankings in Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. To fully realize its mission of fostering a "favourable environment for... research... for industrial and societal development," it is crucial to address these integrity risks. Practices that could compromise the quality and credibility of research output directly challenge the institution's ability to contribute meaningfully to society. A proactive focus on enhancing publication channel selection and reinforcing pre-publication quality assurance will be essential to ensure that the University's recognized thematic excellence is built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
Institution's Z-score: 0.702 | Country's Z-score: 0.189
The institution's risk level for multiple affiliations is consistent with the national medium-risk pattern, yet its score is notably higher, indicating a greater exposure to this dynamic. This suggests that while shared practices may exist at a national level, the University is more prone to showing alert signals. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This high exposure warrants a review to ensure that affiliation practices are driven by genuine scientific partnership rather than metric-oriented strategies.
Institution's Z-score: 0.004 | Country's Z-score: -0.138
The University shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, with a medium-risk signal for retractions in a country context that exhibits low risk. This suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to factors that lead to publication retractions. A rate significantly higher than the national average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more systemically than in peer institutions, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
Institution's Z-score: -0.768 | Country's Z-score: -0.160
The institution exhibits a prudent profile in its citation practices, with a self-citation rate significantly lower than the national average, even though both fall within the low-risk category. This demonstrates that the University manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. Such a low rate is a positive indicator, suggesting that the institution successfully avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' and that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
Institution's Z-score: 0.667 | Country's Z-score: 0.177
While operating in a national context where publishing in discontinued journals is a medium-level risk, the institution's score is considerably higher, indicating high exposure to this issue. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being 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 information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
Institution's Z-score: -1.247 | Country's Z-score: -0.469
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, with a very low-risk signal for hyper-authorship that aligns with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national standard. This absence of risk signals is a strong indicator of healthy authorship practices. It suggests that, outside of legitimate 'Big Science' contexts, the institution effectively prevents author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
Institution's Z-score: 0.081 | Country's Z-score: 0.556
The institution displays differentiated management of its research impact, moderating a risk that appears more common at the national level. Although both the institution and the country are at a medium-risk level, the University's significantly lower score indicates a smaller gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. This suggests that its scientific prestige is less dependent on external partners and more structurally rooted in its own internal capacity, mitigating the sustainability risk of having an influence that is primarily exogenous.
Institution's Z-score: -1.413 | Country's Z-score: -1.020
In the area of hyperprolific authorship, the institution shows total operational silence. The complete absence of risk signals, with a score even lower than the minimal national average, is an exemplary finding. This indicates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive or unmerited authorship.
Institution's Z-score: -0.268 | Country's Z-score: -0.268
The University demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with its national environment, as both show a complete absence of risk related to publishing in institutional journals. This total alignment reflects a shared commitment to best practices, ensuring that scientific production is validated through independent, external peer review. This approach avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, thereby maximizing the global visibility and credibility of its research.
Institution's Z-score: -0.133 | Country's Z-score: -0.667
A slight divergence is observed in this indicator, where the institution shows low but present signals of risk in a national context where such activity is virtually non-existent. This suggests the potential emergence of 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. While the current risk is low, it warrants review to ensure that research practices continue to prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over the fragmentation of data, which can distort the scientific evidence base.
