| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.158 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.009 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.383 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.422 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.254 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.412 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.426 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.577 | 0.720 |
Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.894, characterized by exceptional strengths in governance and specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. The institution exhibits very low risk in areas such as Redundant Output, Multiple Affiliations, and Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust internal controls and a strong ethical foundation. However, this is contrasted by significant risks in the Rate of Retracted Output and the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals, which require immediate strategic intervention. Thematically, the institution showcases national leadership, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it prominently in Earth and Planetary Sciences (ranked 13th in India), Environmental Science (152nd), and Energy (247th). These areas of academic excellence are directly threatened by the identified integrity risks. The mission to produce engineers with "high human values" and uphold the "highest standards" in "high quality research" is undermined when quality control and publication channel selection falter. By focusing on strengthening pre-publication review and enhancing information literacy regarding dissemination venues, the Institute can align its operational integrity with its impressive research performance, thereby safeguarding its reputation and fully realizing its mission.
The institution's Z-score is -1.158, compared to the national average of -0.927. This result indicates a complete absence of risk signals, with performance even exceeding the strong national benchmark. This demonstrates total operational silence in this area, suggesting that the institution's collaboration and affiliation policies are exceptionally clear and transparent. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the data confirms that the Institute's practices are legitimate and well-governed, showing no evidence of "affiliation shopping" and reflecting a culture of straightforward academic partnership.
The institution's Z-score is 1.009, a significant risk level that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.279. This finding suggests that the institution is amplifying a vulnerability that is already present in the national system. A rate significantly higher than the average is a critical alert that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This pattern points to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score is 0.383, while the national average is 0.520. Although both the institution and the country show a medium level of risk, the Institute demonstrates more effective management of this indicator than its national peers. This suggests a differentiated approach that successfully moderates a common risk in the environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution appears to be effectively avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its work is validated by the broader external community rather than relying solely on internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score is 3.422, a significant risk level that far exceeds the national average of 1.099. This indicates that the institution is exacerbating a national trend, channeling a disproportionately high volume of its research into questionable venues. This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being directed to media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score is -1.254, compared to the national average of -1.024. The institution's very low risk profile in this area aligns perfectly with the low-risk national standard, demonstrating low-profile consistency. This absence of risk signals indicates that the institution's authorship practices are transparent and accountable. The data suggests there is no evidence of author list inflation or the use of 'honorary' authorships, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and individual accountability is maintained.
The institution's Z-score is -0.412, a better performance than the national average of -0.292. This prudent profile shows that the institution manages its research dependencies with more rigor than the national standard. A low score in this indicator is a positive sign, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a healthy and sustainable research ecosystem built on genuine internal capacity and a balanced collaboration strategy.
The institution's Z-score is 1.426, a medium risk level that represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.067. This discrepancy suggests the institution is more sensitive to risk factors associated with extreme productivity than its peers. This serves as an alert to review the balance between quantity and quality in its research output. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, and this indicator points to potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score is -0.268, which is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.250. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. The data confirms that the institution does not excessively depend on its own journals for dissemination, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score is -0.577, a very low risk level that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.720. This demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its wider environment. This is a strong indicator of robust internal policies against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' It signals a clear commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
