| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.532 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.357 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.130 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.209 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.334 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.594 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.088 | 0.720 |
Sri Ramakrishna Engineering College presents a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in a low global risk score of 0.220. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and operational excellence in several key areas, maintaining very low risk levels in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. Furthermore, the College shows notable resilience, effectively mitigating national trends toward institutional self-citation and redundant output. These strengths are complemented by strong academic positioning, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting particular prominence in Environmental Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Chemistry. However, this positive outlook is contrasted by two critical vulnerabilities: a significant risk level in the Rate of Retracted Output and a medium risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. These specific issues directly challenge the institution's mission "to grow into knowledge engineers and scientists attaining excellence in domain knowledge- practice and theory" and "excellence in character and personality." A high rate of retractions and publication in substandard journals are fundamentally at odds with the pursuit of excellence and integrity. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, it is recommended that the College focuses strategic interventions on these specific areas, reinforcing its quality assurance and publication ethics frameworks.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.532, which is even more favorable than the country's already very low average of -0.927. This total operational silence in risk signals indicates a clear and transparent approach to academic collaboration. The data suggests that the institution's affiliation practices are straightforward, avoiding any patterns that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing a culture of unambiguous contribution.
The institution's rate of retracted publications is a significant concern, with a Z-score of 1.357 that dramatically exceeds the national medium-risk average of 0.279. This finding suggests that the College is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the norm alerts to a potential systemic weakness in the institution's integrity culture. It strongly suggests that quality control and supervision mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.130, the institution shows effective management of self-citation, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.520. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, where internal controls appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of impact inflation observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the College's low rate indicates it is avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This ensures its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 1.209, presents a medium-risk signal that is slightly higher than the national average of 1.099. This indicates a greater exposure to this risk factor compared to its peers. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may 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.
The institution presents a very low Z-score of -1.334 for hyper-authored output, a figure that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -1.024). This absence of risk signals demonstrates that the institution's authorship practices are consistent with national standards. The data suggests a culture of transparency and accountability in assigning authorship, steering clear of 'honorary' or political attributions that can dilute the value of individual contributions.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile in its collaboration impact, with a Z-score of -0.594 that is significantly more robust than the national average of -0.292. This indicates a healthy balance between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds an intellectual leadership role. This low gap mitigates the sustainability risk of relying on external partners for prestige, suggesting that the institution's excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations.
With a very low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows no evidence of hyperprolific authorship, a result that is well-aligned with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.067). This lack of risk signals is a positive indicator of a healthy research environment. It suggests a focus on the quality and substance of scientific contributions over sheer volume, avoiding potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, thus protecting the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's rate of publication in its own journals is minimal (Z-score: -0.268), demonstrating perfect alignment with the very low-risk national benchmark (Z-score: -0.250). This reflects an integrity synchrony with its environment, as the College avoids over-reliance on internal publication channels. This practice effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review and achieves validation on a global, competitive stage.
The institution demonstrates remarkable resilience against the practice of redundant output, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.088 that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.720. This suggests that internal policies and academic culture effectively discourage the fragmentation of studies into 'minimal publishable units.' By maintaining a low rate of bibliographic overlap, the institution shows a clear commitment to producing work with significant new knowledge rather than artificially inflating publication counts, thereby strengthening the scientific evidence base.
