| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.555 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.531 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.106 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
5.094 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.255 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.003 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.433 | 0.720 |
Maharaja Surajmal Institute of Technology demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in its score of 0.807. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in multiple core areas of scientific practice, with very low risk signals in retracted output, institutional self-citation, hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and publication in its own journals. These results indicate strong internal governance and a culture of responsible research. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a medium risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and a critical alert in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. The institution's thematic strengths, as highlighted by the SCImago Institutions Rankings, are concentrated in Computer Science and Engineering. The identified risks, particularly the reliance on questionable publication venues, directly challenge the institutional mission to "meet the national and global challenges," as this practice can compromise global standing and credibility. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision of excellence and empowerment, it is recommended that the institution undertake a targeted review of its publication guidance and affiliation policies, thereby securing its scientific reputation and ensuring its contributions have a meaningful and lasting impact.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.555, a value that triggers a monitoring alert as it is highly unusual when compared to the national standard, which shows a very low risk profile (Z-score -0.927). This divergence suggests that the institution's affiliation patterns are atypical for its environment and require a review of their underlying causes. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This indicator warrants closer examination to ensure that all declared affiliations are transparent, justified, and reflect substantive collaboration rather than a practice aimed at metric inflation.
With a Z-score of -0.531, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in publication reliability, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score 0.279). This preventive isolation suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and successful. A rate significantly lower than the average, as seen here, is a positive signal of a healthy integrity culture, where methodological rigor and responsible supervision are effectively preventing the types of errors or malpractice that lead to retractions, thereby safeguarding the institution's scientific credibility.
The institution shows a very low rate of self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.106, which indicates a healthy integration into the global scientific community. This performance is particularly noteworthy as it contrasts with the medium risk of insularity observed across the country (Z-score 0.520), demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from this national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low value confirms that its research is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than relying on internal 'echo chambers'. This avoids the risk of endogamous impact inflation and shows that its academic influence is genuinely recognized by the wider research community.
The institution's Z-score of 5.094 in this indicator is a critical red flag, significantly accentuating a vulnerability that is already present at a medium level in the national system (Z-score 1.099). This high value constitutes a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication channels. It indicates that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the investment of resources in 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
With a Z-score of -1.255, the institution maintains a low-profile consistency in authorship patterns, aligning with the low-risk national standard (Z-score -1.024). The absence of risk signals in this area is a positive indicator of transparent and accountable authorship practices. It suggests that the institution's collaborative work does not show signs of author list inflation or the inclusion of 'honorary' authorships, which can dilute individual responsibility. This responsible approach reinforces the integrity of the institution's research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.003, while within the low-risk category, points to an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.292. This score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external collaborations than on research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. A positive gap can signal a sustainability risk, where excellence metrics are driven by strategic positioning in partnerships rather than by structural internal capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on fostering and promoting research where the institution's own scholars take the lead, ensuring long-term scientific autonomy and impact.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 indicates a complete absence of hyperprolific authors, a sign of a healthy and balanced research environment. This low-profile consistency aligns with the national standard, which also shows low risk (Z-score -0.067). This result suggests that the institution fosters a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity of publications. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' ensuring that authorship is assigned for meaningful intellectual contributions and upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security, showing no signs of academic endogamy. This value is in perfect synchrony with the national average (Z-score -0.250), confirming that reliance on in-house journals is not a systemic practice. This behavior is commendable as it avoids potential conflicts of interest where an institution acts as both judge and party. By favoring external, independent peer-reviewed channels, the institution ensures its research undergoes competitive validation, enhances its global visibility, and upholds rigorous academic standards.
The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.433 in a national context where redundant publication is a medium-level risk (Z-score 0.720). This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic national trend. The low score suggests that researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete, significant work protects the integrity of the scientific record and demonstrates a focus on generating substantial new knowledge rather than metric optimization.
