| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.849 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.172 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.580 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.163 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.094 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.093 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.128 | 0.720 |
Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.175, which indicates a performance well-aligned with best international practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its minimal rates of retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and output in institutional journals, alongside a sustainable impact model where institutional leadership is clearly defined. Areas for strategic attention include a tendency towards institutional self-citation, which exceeds the national average, and moderate exposure to publication in discontinued journals and redundant output. These findings are particularly relevant given the University's strong national positioning in key thematic areas, including Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 175th in India) and Computer Science (ranked 201st in India), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully realize its mission of fostering "excellence" and empowering women to become "future leaders, managers, researchers," it is crucial to address these moderate risks. An over-reliance on internal validation or dissemination in low-quality channels could inadvertently limit the global reach and recognition essential for emancipation through knowledge. By refining its policies on citation practices and journal selection, the University can further strengthen its integrity framework, ensuring its pursuit of excellence is built upon a foundation of transparent, globally validated, and impactful research.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.849, a value indicating a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.927. This subtle difference suggests the emergence of risk signals at the university that are not yet apparent in the broader national context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick warrants observation. It serves as an early indicator to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit, thereby maintaining transparency in collaborative attributions.
With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution demonstrates a commendable preventive isolation from the national trend, which shows a medium-risk Z-score of 0.279. This result strongly suggests that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively preventing the systemic issues observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but the institution's exceptionally low rate points towards a robust culture of integrity and methodological rigor that successfully mitigates the risk of recurring malpractice before publication, safeguarding its scientific record.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 1.172, showing a higher exposure to risk when compared to the national average of 0.520. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the institution's elevated rate is a signal for review. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this disproportionately high value warns of a potential 'echo chamber,' where the institution's work may not be receiving sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that its academic influence might be oversized by internal validation rather than recognition from the global scientific community.
In this area, the institution shows differentiated management with a Z-score of 0.580, which is considerably lower than the national average of 1.099. While publishing in such journals remains a shared challenge nationally, the university demonstrates a more effective moderation of this risk. This indicates better due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Nevertheless, the presence of this practice, even at a lower rate, constitutes an alert. It highlights an ongoing need to enhance information literacy among researchers to completely avoid channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical standards, thus preventing reputational damage and the misallocation of resources to predatory outlets.
The institution maintains a low-profile consistency with a Z-score of -1.163, which is even more secure than the low-risk national standard of -1.024. The near-total absence of hyper-authored publications is a positive signal, indicating that authorship practices are transparent and well-governed. This result suggests that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and the integrity of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -1.094, the institution exhibits a very low-risk profile that aligns perfectly with the secure national context (Z-score of -0.292). This result indicates a highly sustainable and healthy research model. The minimal gap between the impact of its total output and the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership demonstrates that its scientific prestige is built on genuine internal capacity. This counters the risk of dependency on external partners, confirming that the university's excellence metrics are a direct result of its own structural strengths and not merely strategic positioning in collaborations.
The institution's Z-score of -0.093 reflects a state of statistical normality, aligning closely with the national average of -0.067. This indicates that the level of highly productive authors is as expected for its context and size, with no signs of unusual activity. This balance is crucial, as it suggests the university fosters a research environment that prioritizes substance over sheer volume, effectively avoiding the risks associated with extreme publication rates, such as a potential compromise between quantity and quality or the dilution of meaningful intellectual contribution.
The university demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with the national environment, with its Z-score of -0.268 being almost identical to the country's Z-score of -0.250. This total alignment in an area of maximum scientific security is highly positive. The negligible rate of publication in its own journals signals a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific production is validated competitively by the global community and not fast-tracked through internal channels.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management of this risk, with a Z-score of 0.128 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.720. Although the practice of redundant publication is a systemic issue in the country, the university is successfully moderating its prevalence. This suggests the presence of editorial oversight that discourages 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. While the risk is not entirely eliminated, this proactive control helps protect the integrity of the scientific record and reduces the burden on the peer-review system.
