| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.720 | -0.220 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.311 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.481 | -0.125 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.503 | -0.469 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.003 | 0.010 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.906 | 0.186 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.715 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.073 | 0.719 |
Tel-Hai College presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.379 indicating performance that is stronger than the global average. The institution demonstrates exceptional strengths in areas critical to research quality, including extremely low rates of retractions, publications in discontinued journals, dependency on external leadership for impact, and hyperprolific authorship. However, areas of moderate risk have been identified in the rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and redundant output, which warrant strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the College's academic strengths are particularly notable in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Environmental Science, and Medicine, where it ranks among the top institutions in Israel. These identified risks, though moderate, could subtly undermine the institution's mission to foster "excellent academia and innovative scientific inquiry," as practices like self-citation or data fragmentation can create a perception of inflated impact rather than genuine innovation. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Tel-Hai College can further solidify its reputation for excellence and ensure its academic activity genuinely drives the strategic and economic development of the Galilee.
The institution's Z-score of 0.720 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.220. This suggests the College exhibits a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area compared to its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate at the institution warrants a closer look to ensure these patterns reflect genuine, strategic collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit and visibility.
With a Z-score of -0.381, the institution demonstrates a very low rate of retracted publications, a positive signal that is consistent with the low-risk national profile (Z-score -0.311). This absence of risk signals indicates that the quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication are robust and functioning effectively. It reflects a healthy culture of integrity and methodological rigor, where potential errors are likely identified and corrected before they can escalate to a formal retraction.
The institution's Z-score of 0.481 is notably higher than the national average of -0.125, indicating a moderate deviation and greater sensitivity to this risk factor. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate could signal a tendency towards scientific isolation or an "echo chamber" where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the broader global community.
The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, with a Z-score of -0.503 that is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.469. This operational silence is a strong positive indicator of excellent due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution effectively safeguards its reputation and ensures its research resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution demonstrates significant resilience against a risk that is more prevalent nationally, with its low-risk Z-score of -1.003 contrasting sharply with the country's medium-risk score of 0.010. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic pressures for author list inflation. The College appears to successfully differentiate between necessary massive collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.906, the institution shows a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the medium-level risk observed at the national level (Z-score 0.186). This preventive disconnection from a problematic national trend is a powerful indicator of research sustainability. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, confirming that its excellence metrics result from structural strengths rather than strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a very low risk, consistent with and even stronger than the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.715). This absence of signals related to extreme individual publication volumes points to a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality. It indicates a research environment that is not susceptible to risks like coercive authorship or the artificial inflation of publication counts, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is perfectly synchronized with the national average, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. This alignment demonstrates a strong commitment to using external, independent peer review for validating its research. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy associated with over-reliance on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production achieves global visibility and credibility.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management of this risk, with a Z-score of 0.073 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.719, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates that the College is successfully moderating a practice that appears more common in the country. This proactive stance against "salami slicing"—the fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units—shows a commitment to producing significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity metrics, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
