| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.192 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.390 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.794 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.270 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.292 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.085 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.745 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
8.719 | 0.720 |
CMR Technical Campus presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside critical areas requiring strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.452, the institution demonstrates a solid foundation, particularly in its very low rates of multiple affiliations, retracted output, and institutional self-citation, which suggest robust internal governance. However, this is contrasted by significant risks in the Rate of Redundant Output and medium-level alerts in publications in discontinued journals and the gap in research leadership impact. Thematically, the institution shows strong positioning in key areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, specifically in Computer Science and Engineering. These thematic strengths are fundamental to achieving the mission of disseminating "Knowledge based research to meet the needs of Industry & Society." However, the identified integrity risks, especially the high rate of redundant output, directly challenge the mission's commitment to "Professional, Ethical and Societal values," as such practices prioritize volume over meaningful contribution. To fully leverage its academic strengths and align its practices with its mission, the institution is advised to implement targeted quality assurance policies that address publication strategies and foster genuine research impact.
The institution's Z-score of -1.192 indicates a very low incidence of multiple affiliations, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.927. This result signals a total operational silence in this area, with an absence of risk signals that is even below the national benchmark. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaborations, the institution's extremely low rate confirms a transparent and straightforward approach to declaring institutional credit, free from any patterns that might suggest strategic "affiliation shopping" to inflate its standing.
With a Z-score of -0.390, the institution shows a very low rate of retracted publications, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 0.279). This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. This suggests that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. While some retractions can result from the honest correction of errors, the institution's excellent performance indicates that its pre-publication processes are successfully preventing the kind of systemic failures or lack of methodological rigor that could compromise its integrity culture.
The institution exhibits a very low rate of self-citation, with a Z-score of -0.794, which is significantly healthier than the national context, where this indicator is at a medium-risk level (Z-score: 0.520). This score reflects a state of preventive isolation, indicating that the institution successfully avoids the endogamous citation patterns seen elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate demonstrates a strong outward-looking research focus. This ensures its work is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can inflate perceived impact through internal dynamics rather than genuine global recognition.
The institution's Z-score for publications in discontinued journals is 2.270, a medium-risk value that indicates high exposure to this issue, especially when compared to the national average of 1.099, which is also at a medium level. This suggests the institution is more prone than its national peers to channeling its research into precarious publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being placed in media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
With a Z-score of -1.292, the institution shows a very low rate of hyper-authored publications, maintaining a risk-free profile in an area where the national context shows low-level signals (Z-score: -1.024). This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with a national standard of controlled authorship practices. This indicates that the institution's research culture effectively distinguishes between necessary collaboration and practices like "honorary" authorship, thereby promoting clear individual accountability and transparency in its scientific contributions.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.085, a medium-risk value that marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk level (Z-score: -0.292). This indicates the institution is more sensitive than its peers to a dependency on external collaborations for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is higher than the impact of institution-led research, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that a portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -0.745 places it in the low-risk category for hyperprolific authors, demonstrating a more prudent profile than the national standard (Z-score: -0.067), which is also at a low-risk level. This indicates that the institution manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national average. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, the institution's controlled rate suggests it is effectively avoiding the imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from extreme publication volumes, thereby mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or authorship assignment without meaningful participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is very low and almost identical to the national average of -0.250. This reflects an integrity synchrony and a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. This practice demonstrates a commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent peer review, mitigating the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party for its own research.
The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 8.719, a significant-risk value that indicates a critical issue. This score represents a sharp accentuation of risk, amplifying a vulnerability that is already present at a medium level within the national system (Z-score: 0.720). This extremely high value is a major alert for the practice of data fragmentation or "salami slicing," where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice distorts the scientific evidence available to the community and overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge. This finding requires an urgent and thorough review of institutional publication policies and author guidelines.
