| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.572 | -0.062 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.155 | -0.050 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.610 | 0.045 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.299 | -0.024 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.704 | -0.721 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.055 | -0.809 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.523 | 0.425 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.010 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.863 | -0.515 |
The University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences presents a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.079. This score reflects a commendable performance, particularly in areas of publication ethics and external validation, as evidenced by very low risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, specifically a medium risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and the Gap between its total impact and the impact of its led research. These findings are contextualized by the institution's significant thematic strengths, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data placing it among the top national performers in key areas such as Dentistry, Physics and Astronomy, Psychology, and Chemistry. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified vulnerabilities, particularly in publication channel selection, could pose a challenge to the universal academic mission of achieving excellence and maintaining social responsibility. By addressing these specific risks, the University can further solidify its strong integrity foundation, ensuring its research practices fully align with its demonstrated thematic leadership and enhancing its global reputation.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.572, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.062. This suggests a prudent and rigorous approach to managing affiliations, surpassing the standard practices observed across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University's controlled rate indicates a low risk of strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, reflecting a clear and transparent policy on authorship contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution shows a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.050. This demonstrates a commendable level of control over its publication quality, suggesting that its pre-publication review and supervision mechanisms are more effective than the national standard. A rate significantly higher than average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, but the University's low score points towards a strong foundation of methodological rigor that effectively minimizes the risk of systemic failures in quality control.
The University exhibits a Z-score of -1.610, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.045, which falls into a medium risk category. This demonstrates a successful preventive isolation from the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution’s exceptionally low rate signals a strong outward-looking research culture that avoids 'echo chambers' and endogamous impact inflation. This result indicates that the institution’s academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being sustained by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.299 marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.024, indicating a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals suggests that a significant portion of scientific output may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need to enhance information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.704 is statistically aligned with the national average of -0.721. This indicates a normal and expected level of co-authorship for its context, suggesting that authorship practices are consistent with national standards. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can signal author list inflation. However, the University's score does not raise this concern, reflecting a balanced approach to collaboration that appears to uphold individual accountability and transparency in authorship.
A Z-score of 0.055 for this indicator represents a significant monitoring alert, as it is an unusually high risk level when compared to the national standard of -0.809. This wide positive gap—where the institution's overall impact is notably higher than the impact of research it leads—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to build more structural, internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics are a direct result of its own research prowess.
The University's Z-score of -0.523 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.425, which is in the medium risk range. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks of hyperprolific authorship observed at the national level. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's low score indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution registers a very low rate of publication in its own journals, aligning with the low-risk national standard (Z-score of -0.010). This low-profile consistency demonstrates an absence of risk signals in this area. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The University's minimal use of such channels indicates a commitment to independent, external peer review, which enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, avoiding any perception of academic endogamy or 'fast-track' publishing.
The institution's Z-score of -0.863 signifies a near-total operational silence on this indicator, placing it well below the already low national average of -0.515. This exceptional result points to an absence of risk signals related to redundant publications. The practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity—distorts scientific evidence. The University's extremely low score is a strong testament to its commitment to publishing complete, significant research, prioritizing new knowledge over sheer volume.
