| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.256 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.240 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.910 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.493 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.571 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.629 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
Ashoka University demonstrates a strong overall scientific integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.365 that indicates performance significantly healthier than the national average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust internal governance, reflected by very low risk levels in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyperprolific Authorship, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. These results suggest a culture that successfully resists common national vulnerabilities. However, areas requiring strategic attention are the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Gap between total and led impact, both of which present a medium risk. These indicators point to potential over-reliance on external collaboration for impact and a need to review affiliation practices. Academically, the institution shows notable leadership according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. While a specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks could challenge the long-term sustainability of academic excellence. A high dependency on external partners for impact, for instance, may not align with a goal of building sovereign intellectual leadership. Overall, Ashoka University exhibits a commendable integrity framework. By proactively addressing the medium-risk areas to ensure that collaborative practices build internal capacity, the institution can further solidify its position as a leader in responsible and high-impact research, fully aligning its operational practices with its demonstrated academic strengths.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.256, a medium-risk signal that stands in sharp contrast to the very low-risk national average of -0.927. This divergence constitutes a monitoring alert, as it indicates an unusual level of this activity compared to the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, this score warrants a review of internal policies to ensure these patterns reflect genuine, strategic partnerships rather than "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit. The key is to verify that this practice, which is atypical for the country, is fostering substantive collaboration and not just metric enhancement.
With a Z-score of -0.240, the institution maintains a low-risk profile in an environment where the national average is at a medium-risk level of 0.279. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. The university's performance indicates that its quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are more robust than the national standard, successfully preventing the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that can lead to a higher rate of retractions elsewhere.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.910, a very low-risk value that signifies a clear departure from the national average, which sits at a medium-risk level of 0.520. This positive result points to a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This exceptionally low rate of self-citation is a strong indicator that the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It suggests that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.493 places it in the very low-risk category, a stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 1.099. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a significant national vulnerability. The data suggests that the institution's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting publication venues, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals that do not meet international standards. This practice not only protects the university's reputation but also indicates a high level of information literacy that prevents the misallocation of research efforts.
The institution's Z-score of -0.571 is within the low-risk band, yet it is slightly higher than the national average of -1.024. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability, where the university shows minor signals of risk that warrant review before they escalate. While the current level is not alarming, it is important to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable. The goal is to proactively distinguish between necessary, large-scale collaboration and any potential trend towards 'honorary' authorship, which can dilute individual responsibility.
The institution has a Z-score of 1.629, indicating a medium-risk level, which represents a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.292. This gap suggests that the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to a dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. A high value in this indicator signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural. It invites strategic reflection on whether the university's excellence metrics stem from its own internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution exhibits a very low-risk profile, performing significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.067. This finding reflects a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This indicates a healthy research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, avoiding the potential pitfalls of hyperprolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution. The balance between productivity and scientific integrity appears to be well-managed.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.250, with both falling into the very low-risk category. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This result confirms that the university is not overly reliant on its own journals for publication, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By channeling its research through external, independent peer-review processes, the institution ensures its work is validated competitively and achieves global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 is in the very low-risk category, positioning it favorably against the national average of 0.720, which indicates a medium-risk environment. This wide, positive gap suggests a state of preventive isolation, where the university effectively curbs practices that are more common nationally. The data indicates that the institution fosters the publication of coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting research into 'minimal publishable units.' This commitment to substance over volume strengthens the integrity of its scientific record.
