| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.548 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.221 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.583 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.226 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.895 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
The Indian Institute of Management, Raipur, demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.688 that indicates robust internal governance and a culture of ethical research. The institution significantly outperforms the national context across nearly all indicators, showcasing key strengths in maintaining a very low rate of institutional self-citation and multiple affiliations, which points to a commitment to external validation and transparent crediting. It exhibits remarkable resilience by effectively insulating itself from the medium-risk trends observed nationally in retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications. This outstanding performance aligns perfectly with the institution's mission "to provide a learning centric environment that nurtures management thought through research and practice to create future leaders." By ensuring the research it produces is built on a foundation of rigor and ethics, the Institute directly supports the creation of leaders who value and embody responsible conduct. This commitment is further reflected in its strong positioning in key thematic areas, including Business, Management and Accounting, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The Institute has established a benchmark for scientific integrity, and it is recommended to leverage this exceptional profile as a strategic asset to attract top-tier talent and collaborators, thereby reinforcing its leadership position.
The institution's Z-score of -1.548 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.927, indicating a complete operational silence on this risk front. This performance, which is even stronger than the already low-risk national standard, suggests highly transparent and unambiguous authorship and affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The institution's data shows a clear commitment to proper crediting, avoiding any ambiguity related to "affiliation shopping" and reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution displays a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national context (Z-score of 0.279). This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms successfully mitigate the systemic risks present in the wider environment. A high rate of retractions can indicate a systemic failure of quality control prior to publication. The institution's low score points to effective pre-publication review processes and a strong integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that would require such corrective actions.
The institution achieves a Z-score of -1.583, marking a profound and positive deviation from the national average of 0.520. This result signifies a successful preventive isolation from risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's extremely low rate confirms that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global scientific community, not on internal 'echo chambers.' This performance effectively mitigates any risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrates that the institution's work is validated through robust external scrutiny.
The institution's low-risk Z-score of -0.226 reflects effective institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 1.099. This indicates that strong internal control mechanisms are in place, buffering the institution from the higher risks seen nationally. A high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting publication venues. The institution's low score shows that its researchers are successfully identifying and utilizing reputable dissemination channels, thereby protecting its reputation and ensuring that scientific resources are not channeled into 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.401, the institution shows a near-total absence of risk signals, a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national standard (-1.024). This low-profile consistency underscores a culture of responsible authorship. When hyper-authorship appears outside of 'Big Science' contexts, it can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's very low score suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and that credit is assigned based on meaningful intellectual contributions, reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.895 reflects a very low-risk profile, consistent with and even better than the low-risk national context (-0.292). A wide positive gap in this indicator can signal a dependency on external partners for impact, suggesting prestige is exogenous rather than structural. The institution's negative score indicates the opposite: its scientific impact is driven by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This demonstrates strong internal capacity and a sustainable, self-sufficient model for generating high-quality science.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, a position of low-profile consistency that is significantly more secure than the national average of -0.067. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's near-zero incidence of this practice indicates a healthy research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics, avoiding risks such as coercive or honorary authorship.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's practices are in perfect integrity synchrony with the secure national environment, where the average is -0.250. The statistically identical scores indicate total alignment. This suggests that while in-house journals may be used for training or local dissemination, there is no excessive dependence on them that could create conflicts of interest or foster academic endogamy. The institution's scientific production appears to be validated through standard, competitive external peer-review channels, ensuring its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signals a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics prevalent in the national environment (Z-score of 0.720). A high rate of massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's very low score demonstrates a clear commitment to publishing significant and coherent bodies of work, prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over the pursuit of volume and thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
