| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.050 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.061 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.147 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.436 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.350 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.050 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.236 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.993 | 0.720 |
The KIET Group of Institutions demonstrates a robust and generally positive scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall score of 0.122. The institution exhibits significant strengths and very low risk in areas fundamental to research ethics, including authorship practices, intellectual leadership, and the avoidance of academic endogamy. These strengths are particularly evident in the minimal rates of hyper-authored output, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution's strongest thematic areas include Physics and Astronomy, Computer Science, Business, Management and Accounting, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-risk vulnerabilities, notably in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Rate of Redundant Output, where the institution's metrics exceed national averages. These specific risks directly challenge the institutional mission "to impart quality professional education" and "undertake collaborative interdisciplinary research," as they can undermine the credibility and impact of its scientific contributions. Addressing these targeted areas of high exposure will be crucial to fully align research practices with the stated commitment to quality and innovation, thereby solidifying its reputation for excellence and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.050, a low-risk value that nonetheless diverges slightly from the national average of -0.927, which indicates a near-total absence of this activity. This suggests that while the national context is exceptionally inert, the institution shows minor, yet observable, signals of this practice. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight deviation from a very low national baseline warrants passive monitoring to ensure that these affiliations consistently reflect genuine collaborations rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.
With a Z-score of 0.061, the institution demonstrates effective management of a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 0.279). This indicates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are performing better than the country's average in mitigating the circumstances that lead to retractions. Retractions are complex events, and a high rate can suggest systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. In this case, the institution's ability to maintain a lower rate than its peers points to a more resilient integrity culture and responsible handling of the scientific record.
The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.147, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.520. This performance suggests that the institution's control mechanisms effectively mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. The institution's very low score indicates that its research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating a healthy integration into global academic discourse.
The institution shows high exposure in this area, with a medium-risk Z-score of 1.436 that is notably higher than the national average of 1.099. This indicates a greater institutional propensity for publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards. A high proportion of output in such venues constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work through 'predatory' or low-quality media, thereby ensuring resources are used effectively.
With a Z-score of -1.350, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low risk in this indicator, performing even better than the low-risk national standard (-1.024). This alignment reflects a consistent and healthy approach to authorship. In fields outside of 'Big Science', high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's very low score confirms the absence of such practices, reinforcing a culture of transparency and meaningful contribution in its collaborative research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.050 signifies a very low risk and a position of strong intellectual leadership, surpassing the low-risk national average of -0.292. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capacity. The institution's negative score is a clear indicator of sustainability, demonstrating that its scientific impact is driven by research where its own scholars exercise intellectual leadership, reflecting true internal capability and a solid foundation for future growth.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.236, significantly better than the national average of -0.067. This result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and scientific rigor. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's excellent score suggests that it successfully avoids the risks of coercive or honorary authorship, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over inflated metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.250, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this area. Both scores indicate a very low dependence on in-house journals, which can otherwise raise conflicts of interest by having the institution act as both judge and party. This alignment demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring that its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and enhancing its global visibility.
This indicator reveals an area of high exposure, as the institution's medium-risk Z-score of 1.993 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.720. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices that artificially inflate productivity. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of a coherent study into minimal publishable units. This practice distorts the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. The high value here serves as an alert to review publication strategies and reinforce a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
