| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.355 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
4.494 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.447 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.282 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.070 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.382 | 0.720 |
The Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity framework, reflected in an overall score of 0.861. The institution's performance is characterized by exceptional control over most risk indicators, particularly in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, the Impact Gap with Leadership, and Hyperprolific Authorship, signaling a culture that values external validation, intellectual autonomy, and quality over sheer volume. This strong foundation supports the institution's prominent national standing, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in core thematic areas like Business, Management and Accounting (India Rank 45), Social Sciences (India Rank 53), and Economics, Econometrics and Finance (India Rank 79). However, this profile of excellence is critically challenged by two significant vulnerabilities: a significant alert regarding the Rate of Retracted Output and a medium-level concern with Redundant Output (Salami Slicing). These specific risks directly contradict the institutional mission to develop "ethical business leaders" and disseminate knowledge with "critical thinking," as they can undermine the credibility and integrity of the research record. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission of excellence and social responsibility, it is recommended that the institution leverage its many strengths to conduct a targeted review of its pre-publication quality control processes and authorship guidelines, thereby reinforcing its commitment to producing impactful and unimpeachable research.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.355, a figure that is even lower than the national average of -0.927. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, positioning the center's practices as more rigorous than the already low-risk national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the operational silence on this indicator confirms that the institution's affiliation practices are transparent and free from any strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of 4.494, the institution shows a critical deviation from the national average of 0.279. This finding suggests that the center is not only susceptible to but actively amplifies the vulnerabilities related to research quality that are present at a medium level in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average serves as a powerful alert to a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This score indicates that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's reputation and uphold its commitment to ethical research.
The institution's Z-score of -1.447 stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 0.520. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the center successfully avoids replicating the risk dynamics observed in its wider environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate shows it is not succumbing to the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This performance confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.282, which is significantly lower than the national average of 1.099. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating the systemic risks prevalent in the country. While a sporadic presence in such journals can occur, the institution's low score indicates a high level of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This proactive approach protects the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing and shows a commitment to channeling resources toward impactful and ethically sound venues.
With a Z-score of -1.401, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, a profile that is even more conservative than the country's low-risk average of -1.024. This low-profile consistency reflects a healthy approach to authorship and collaboration. While extensive author lists are legitimate in certain 'Big Science' fields, this indicator's low value confirms that the institution is not engaging in author list inflation. This fosters a culture of clear individual accountability and transparency, effectively distinguishing its collaborative work from practices involving 'honorary' or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -1.070 is markedly lower than the national average of -0.292, indicating an exceptionally strong and positive profile. This absence of risk signals demonstrates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and internally generated, not dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, but this very low score confirms that the institution's excellence metrics result from its own real internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This is a hallmark of a mature and scientifically autonomous institution that leads, rather than follows, in its collaborative efforts.
The institution registers a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a complete absence of this risk factor, which is a stronger performance than the already low national average of -0.067. This low-profile consistency suggests a well-balanced academic environment. While high productivity can be positive, extreme publication volumes challenge the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This very low score indicates that the institution fosters a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.250. This demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. In-house journals can present a conflict of interest, but the institution's negligible reliance on them confirms that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review. This practice ensures its research competes on a global stage and avoids the risk of academic endogamy or the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of 1.382, the institution shows a higher risk level than the national average of 0.720, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, suggesting the center is more prone to showing these alert signals than its peers. Citing previous work is normal, but this score warns of a potential tendency to divide coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice, known as 'salami slicing,' not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
