| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.118 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.248 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.511 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.178 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.373 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.288 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.124 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
Dwarkadas J Sanghvi College of Engineering demonstrates a strong overall integrity profile, with a risk score of 0.016 indicating a solid foundation in responsible research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Redundant Output (Salami Slicing), and Output in Institutional Journals, all of which are well below national averages. Furthermore, the college shows notable resilience in managing Institutional Self-Citation, maintaining a low-risk profile in a national context of medium risk. However, areas requiring strategic attention include the medium-risk indicators for Retracted Output, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Hyperprolific Authors. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, could potentially undermine the institution's reputation and the impact of its recognized thematic strengths. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the college holds a significant position in key areas such as Computer Science and Engineering. While the institution's specific mission was not provided, any commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility is inherently threatened by risks related to publication quality and authorship integrity. Addressing these medium-risk signals proactively will be crucial to ensure that operational practices fully align with the values of a leading engineering institution. A targeted review of pre-publication quality controls and authorship guidelines is recommended to consolidate its already commendable performance and secure its long-term scientific credibility.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -1.118), a figure that is even more conservative than the very low national average for India (Z-score: -0.927). This result signifies a complete absence of risk signals in this area, suggesting that the institution's policies on author affiliation are clear, transparent, and rigorously applied. This operational silence, even when compared to a low-risk national environment, confirms that practices like "affiliation shopping" or strategic inflation of institutional credit are not a concern, reflecting a culture of unambiguous and honest academic attribution.
The institution's rate of retracted output (Z-score: 0.248) is statistically aligned with the national average (Z-score: 0.279), indicating that its performance mirrors a systemic pattern common within the country's research landscape. Retractions are complex events, but a rate at this medium-risk level suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be facing challenges similar to those seen nationwide. A rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to ensure the robustness of its scientific record.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.511, the institution demonstrates notable resilience, effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level, where the average is in the medium-risk category (Z-score: 0.520). This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are successful in preventing the kind of endogamous citation patterns seen elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's ability to maintain a low rate indicates that its research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can lead to inflated impact based on internal dynamics rather than genuine external recognition.
The institution shows a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 1.178 that is slightly above the already medium-risk national average (Z-score: 1.099). This indicates that the institution is more prone than its peers to channeling its research through outlets that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile for hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.373), which aligns well with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -1.024). This absence of risk signals demonstrates a consistent and responsible approach to authorship. In fields outside of "Big Science," high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The institution's excellent result in this area confirms that its collaborative practices are transparent and free from questionable 'honorary' or political authorship, reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution's performance on this indicator (Z-score: -0.288) is in close alignment with the national average (Z-score: -0.292), reflecting a state of statistical normality for its context. This low-risk score indicates a healthy and sustainable balance between the impact generated through collaborations and the impact of research led internally. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership, a key marker of a mature and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
A moderate deviation is observed in the rate of hyperprolific authors, where the institution presents a medium-risk signal (Z-score: 0.124) that stands in contrast to the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.067). This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this particular risk factor than its national peers. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of internal authorship policies.
The institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony in its use of institutional journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is fully aligned with the very low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.250). This result indicates that the institution operates in an environment of maximum scientific security regarding this practice. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution successfully mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves global visibility rather than being channeled through internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution shows an outstanding capacity for preventive isolation from national trends in redundant publication, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.186 in a country where this practice is a medium-risk concern (Z-score: 0.720). This demonstrates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' indicates the fragmentation of studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. The institution's exemplary performance confirms its commitment to producing significant, coherent knowledge over artificially boosting publication volume, thereby strengthening the integrity of the scientific evidence it generates.
