University of Professional Studies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Professional Studies demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.414. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for hyperprolific authorship, leadership impact, and multiple affiliations, effectively insulating itself from adverse national trends. This solid foundation of ethical practice strongly supports its leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top national positions in Business, Management and Accounting (4th in Ghana), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (6th), and Social Sciences (8th). This performance aligns well with the university's mission to provide "quality higher education" through "Scholarship with Professionalism" in an "ethical way." However, a medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and a slight divergence in redundant output present a direct challenge to this mission, potentially undermining the perceived quality and ethical standing of its scholarship. To fully realize its strategic vision, the university is encouraged to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to excellence and solidifying its reputation as a leader in responsible and impactful research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

With a Z-score of -0.921, the University of Professional Studies shows a very low rate of multiple affiliations, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.189). This demonstrates a clear and transparent institutional policy on affiliation, effectively creating a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's controlled approach ensures that affiliations are unambiguous, reinforcing both individual and institutional accountability in its research output.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution's rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.146) is low and closely mirrors the national average (Z-score: -0.138), indicating a state of statistical normality. This alignment suggests that the university's post-publication correction activities are in line with expected standards for an institution of its size and context. Retractions can signify responsible supervision when correcting honest errors; in this case, the data does not point to any systemic failure in pre-publication quality control, but rather reflects a healthy and functioning scientific oversight process.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university exhibits a prudent profile in its citation practices, with a Z-score for institutional self-citation of -0.245, which is notably lower than the national benchmark of -0.160. This indicates that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, fostering strong connections with the global scientific community. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers.' By maintaining a low level, the university mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

This indicator reveals an area of high exposure and a need for strategic intervention. The institution's Z-score of 0.424 is not only in the medium-risk category but is also significantly higher than the national average of 0.177, showing it is more prone to this risk than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern suggests that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, posing a reputational risk and signaling an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the use of predatory or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a very low rate of hyper-authored publications (Z-score: -1.138), a result that is consistent with and even stronger than the low-risk national profile (Z-score: -0.469). This low-profile consistency and the clear absence of risk signals reflect a healthy and transparent approach to authorship. This performance indicates that collaborative work is well-defined, effectively avoiding practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships that can dilute individual accountability and obscure meaningful contributions.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The university demonstrates exceptional strength and autonomy in its research impact, with a Z-score of -2.103, which signifies a very low risk. This result is particularly noteworthy as it represents a preventive isolation from the national trend, where a medium-risk Z-score of 0.556 suggests a wider dependency on external collaborations for impact. The institution's negative gap indicates that research led by its own authors is more impactful than its overall collaborative output. This signals robust internal capacity and intellectual leadership, confirming that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, not merely a byproduct of strategic positioning in partnerships.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a total operational silence regarding hyperprolific authors, performing even better than the very low-risk national average (Z-score: -1.020). This complete absence of risk signals points to a healthy research environment where a balance between quantity and quality is maintained. It suggests that the university's culture does not encourage practices such as coercive authorship or prioritizing metrics over the integrity of the scientific record, ensuring that authorship is consistently tied to meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's publication practices show perfect integrity synchrony with the national context, with its Z-score of -0.268 exactly matching the country's very low-risk benchmark. This total alignment demonstrates a commendable avoidance of excessive dependence on in-house journals, thereby mitigating potential conflicts of interest where the institution might act as both judge and party. By prioritizing external and independent peer review, the university ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, which enhances its global visibility and prevents academic endogamy.

Rate of Redundant Output

In this indicator, the institution's Z-score of -0.416, while in the low-risk category, marks a slight divergence from the national environment, which shows a near-total absence of this risk (Z-score: -0.667). This gap suggests the emergence of incipient signals of risk activity that are not apparent elsewhere in the country. This may point to a minor, but observable, tendency towards data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. While not yet a critical issue, this trend warrants monitoring to ensure the institutional focus remains on producing significant new knowledge rather than simply increasing publication volume.