| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.360 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.024 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.000 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.346 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.118 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.362 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
4.541 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.363 | 0.720 |
Suresh Gyan Vihar University presents a complex profile with an overall integrity score of 1.417, indicating a moderate level of risk that requires strategic attention. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in specific areas of research integrity, particularly in its low rate of retracted publications and its negligible reliance on institutional journals, which align with or surpass national standards. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by significant vulnerabilities. The primary areas of concern are the exceptionally high rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in discontinued journals, alongside elevated levels of multiple affiliations and redundant output. These indicators suggest systemic pressures that could compromise the quality and transparency of the university's research. The institution's strong national positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data—notably in Agricultural and Biological Sciences (ranked 33rd in India), Earth and Planetary Sciences (44th), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (63rd), and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (68th)—highlights its potential for impactful research. However, the identified integrity risks pose a direct threat to this potential. While the university's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, such practices fundamentally conflict with the universal academic principles of excellence and social responsibility. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Suresh Gyan Vihar University can safeguard its reputation, enhance the credibility of its strong research areas, and ensure its operational practices fully support its academic ambitions.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.360, a value that triggers a monitoring alert as it stands in stark contrast to the national average of -0.927. This discrepancy indicates an unusual level of this activity compared to the national standard, requiring a review of its underlying causes. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the institution's significantly higher rate suggests a potential strategic inflation of institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This divergence from the very low-risk national context warrants an internal examination to ensure that affiliation practices are transparent and reflect genuine scientific contribution rather than metric-driven strategies.
With a Z-score of -0.024, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.279. This favorable result suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effective in mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign of responsible supervision and robust quality control processes prior to publication. The institution's performance in this area indicates a healthy integrity culture where potential errors are managed effectively, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a higher incidence of retractions.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.000, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.520. Although both scores fall within a medium-risk band, the university's higher value indicates a greater exposure to this risk factor compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate warns of a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This tendency could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of 3.346 is a significant red flag, indicating a critical accentuation of a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 1.099). This high value constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality journals.
With a Z-score of 0.118, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national context, where the average is -1.024. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with hyper-authorship than its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a heightened indicator outside these contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This score serves as a signal for the institution to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship practices that do not reflect substantive contributions.
The institution's Z-score of 0.362 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.292. This suggests the university has a greater sensitivity than its peers to risks related to dependency on external collaborations for impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. The score invites reflection on whether the institution's prestige is derived from its own structural capacity or from a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, making its high-impact status potentially exogenous and fragile.
The institution's Z-score of 4.541 is a critical finding, indicating a severe discrepancy with the national average of -0.067. This atypical level of risk activity is an absolute outlier and requires a deep integrity assessment. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal significant imbalances between quantity and quality. This indicator alerts to potential systemic issues such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record and demand urgent institutional review.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.250. This total alignment in a very low-risk area is a mark of excellence. It shows that the institution avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from over-reliance on in-house journals. By favoring external, independent peer review, the university ensures its scientific production is validated competitively, enhances its global visibility, and upholds the highest standards of scholarly communication.
With a Z-score of 2.363, the institution shows high exposure to this risk, especially when compared to the national average of 0.720. While both operate in a medium-risk environment, the university is significantly more prone to this behavior than its peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated score warns that such practices may be distorting the available scientific evidence and overburdening the review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
