| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.992 | 0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.014 | 0.455 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.592 | -0.371 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.558 | 0.812 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.230 | -0.759 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.494 | 0.410 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.246 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.977 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.717 | -0.066 |
Modern College of Business and Science presents a balanced integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.031 that aligns closely with the global average. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in governance, showing very low risk in areas such as Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and publication in its own journals. These results point to robust policies regarding authorship and a commendable commitment to external validation. However, areas requiring strategic monitoring include a medium risk in Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the College's key thematic strengths are concentrated in Business, Management and Accounting, Computer Science, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. To fully realize its mission "to facilitate learning and growth in knowledge, skills, innovation and technical know-how," it is crucial to address these integrity risks. Practices like self-citation and data fragmentation can create an illusion of innovation without the rigorous external validation that truly serves the community. By leveraging its strong governance foundations to mitigate these vulnerabilities, the College can enhance the credibility and global reach of its core academic programs, ensuring its contributions are both innovative and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of -0.992 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.062, which falls into the medium-risk range. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the College does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its national environment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The College’s very low rate suggests a well-defined and transparent affiliation policy that effectively prevents such "affiliation shopping," maintaining a governance standard independent of the country's prevailing situation.
With a Z-score of -0.014, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, which is notably better than the country's medium-risk score of 0.455. This difference highlights the institution's resilience, as its internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks present at the national level. A high rate of retractions can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing. The College's low score indicates that its pre-publication supervision is robust, effectively acting as a filter against the kind of recurring methodological or ethical issues that may be more prevalent in the wider national context.
The institution exhibits a medium-risk Z-score of 0.592, which represents a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.371. This suggests that the College shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors that encourage internal citation compared to its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate serves as a warning against the potential formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' It signals a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global research community.
The institution's Z-score of 0.558 places it in the medium-risk category, similar to the national average of 0.812. However, the College’s score is discernibly lower, pointing to a more differentiated management of this risk. This indicates that the institution is more effective at moderating a risk that appears common in the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The College's relatively better performance suggests it has stronger, though not perfect, safeguards against channeling research into media that fail to meet international standards, thereby reducing its exposure to reputational damage from 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.230, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of hyper-authored output, a figure that is even more conservative than the country's low-risk average of -0.759. This low-profile consistency shows that the absence of risk signals aligns with, and improves upon, the national standard. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, high rates in this indicator can signal author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The College’s excellent result indicates that its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship.
The institution's Z-score of 2.494 is in the medium-risk range and reveals a high exposure to this vulnerability, as it is significantly higher than the national average of 0.410. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is much higher than the impact of research led by the institution—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the College's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than built on its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, far below the country's low-risk average of -0.246. This demonstrates low-profile consistency and an exemplary standard of research management. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The College's exceptionally low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting that its academic environment is not exposed to these integrity risks and prioritizes the substance of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution has a very low rate of publication in its own journals, a stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.977. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the College's practices are independent of national trends. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing external peer review. The College’s commitment to publishing in external venues demonstrates a strong preference for independent validation, which enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research output.
The institution's Z-score of 0.717 places it in the medium-risk category for redundant output, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.066. This indicates that the College is more sensitive than its national peers to practices that can artificially inflate productivity. A high value in this indicator alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, coherent new knowledge over sheer volume.
