| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.522 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.099 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.182 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.921 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.156 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.338 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.119 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.023 | 0.720 |
Vivekananda Global University demonstrates a complex integrity profile, characterized by notable strengths in operational governance alongside significant vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.523, the institution exhibits exemplary control in areas such as hyper-authorship and publication in institutional journals, indicating robust internal standards. However, this is contrasted by critical exposure in its choice of publication venues and medium-level risks in author productivity and content originality. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest research areas nationally include Earth and Planetary Sciences, Medicine, and Business, Management and Accounting. These thematic strengths, which are crucial for fulfilling its mission of facilitating "knowledge sharing" and contributing to "nation's development," are directly threatened by the identified risks. Publishing in discontinued journals and engaging in redundant publication practices fundamentally contradict the pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility, potentially devaluing the institution's research contributions. To secure its long-term vision, the university is advised to leverage its areas of integrity strength to develop targeted policies and training that address its specific vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its research practices fully align with its commendable mission.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.522, which, while low, marks a slight divergence from the national Z-score of -0.927. This indicates that while the country as a whole shows virtually no signals of this risk, the university exhibits a nascent level of activity. Although multiple affiliations are often legitimate, this minor deviation suggests the emergence of patterns that, if they were to grow, could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. At its current low level, this indicator does not represent a concern but warrants passive monitoring to ensure it remains within standard collaborative norms.
With a Z-score of -0.099, the university demonstrates exceptional institutional resilience compared to the national average of 0.279. In a context where retractions are a medium-level concern for the country, the institution’s low rate suggests that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating these systemic risks. This performance indicates that quality control and supervision processes prior to publication are robust. Rather than pointing to systemic failures, this low score signifies a culture of integrity and responsible research conduct, successfully preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be more prevalent elsewhere in the national system.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.182, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.520, even though both fall within a medium-risk classification. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university's ability to keep this rate below the national trend indicates it is less susceptible to creating scientific 'echo chambers'. This proactive control helps mitigate the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than primarily by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 2.921 represents a critical alert, significantly amplifying the national system's existing vulnerability (Z-score of 1.099). This finding indicates a systemic issue in the selection of dissemination channels. Such a high proportion of publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards constitutes a severe reputational risk. It suggests an urgent and widespread need for improved information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into 'predatory' or low-quality venues. This practice not only wastes institutional resources but fundamentally compromises the integrity and impact of the university's scientific output, demanding immediate corrective action from management.
With a Z-score of -1.156, the institution demonstrates a complete absence of risk signals related to hyper-authorship, a profile that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -1.024). This result is a clear indicator of good governance in authorship practices. It reflects a culture where author lists are managed with transparency and accountability, effectively avoiding the risk of inflation through 'honorary' or political inclusions. This strong performance ensures that credit is assigned appropriately and individual contributions remain clear, reinforcing the integrity of the institution's collaborative research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.338 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.292, indicating a state of statistical normality for its context. This low and stable gap suggests that the university's scientific prestige is well-balanced and not overly dependent on external partners. The impact of its overall scientific output is healthily correlated with the impact of the research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. This profile points to a sustainable research model built on genuine internal capacity, mitigating the risk of relying on collaborations for prestige without developing structural excellence.
The university's Z-score of 0.119 places it at a medium risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.067). This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its national peers to risk factors associated with extreme individual productivity. The presence of authors with publication volumes that challenge the conventional limits of meaningful intellectual contribution serves as an alert. It points to a potential imbalance between quantity and quality and warrants a review to ensure that institutional pressures are not encouraging practices like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing a complete alignment with the secure national environment (Z-score of -0.250). This very low rate is a testament to the university's commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the institution effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent, external peer review, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' for publication, thereby strengthening the credibility and reach of its research.
The institution's Z-score of 2.023 indicates high exposure to redundant publication, a rate significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.720, despite both being classified as medium-risk. This elevated value is an alert for the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where cohesive studies may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This tendency not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base. It suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, new knowledge over sheer volume.
