| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.963 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.295 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.429 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.286 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.045 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.414 | 0.720 |
Manav Rachna University demonstrates a robust and well-balanced scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall score of -0.160. The institution exhibits exceptional governance in multiple areas, with very low risk signals in multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, hyperprolificacy, dependency on external leadership, and use of institutional journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its recognized academic contributions in fields such as Business, Management and Accounting, Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, attention is required for three medium-risk indicators: institutional self-citation, redundant output, and particularly, a high exposure to publication in discontinued journals. This last point directly challenges the institutional mission to produce "globally competitive, ethical and socially responsible human resources," as channeling research through low-quality venues can compromise both global competitiveness and ethical standards. Manav Rachna University is well-positioned to leverage its strong governance to mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby fully aligning its research practices with its stated mission of holistic and responsible education and ensuring its contributions are both impactful and unimpeachable.
The institution's Z-score of -0.963 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.927, demonstrating a perfect alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security. This integrity synchrony confirms a total absence of risk signals. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University's data indicates that its affiliation practices are standard and transparent, reflecting a healthy, collaborative research culture free from "affiliation shopping."
The institution demonstrates notable resilience, with its low-risk Z-score of -0.334 contrasting sharply with the medium-risk dynamic observed nationally (Z-score: 0.279). This suggests that the University’s internal quality control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in its environment. A high rate of retractions can suggest that pre-publication quality controls are failing. The institution's low rate indicates that its review processes are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that would compromise its integrity culture.
With a Z-score of 0.295, the institution shows a moderate level of self-citation but manages this practice more conservatively than the national average (Z-score: 0.520). This reflects a differentiated management approach that moderates a risk more common in the country. While some self-citation is natural, disproportionately high rates can signal scientific 'echo chambers.' The University's contained rate suggests it is successfully avoiding endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 1.429 indicates a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, a rate notably higher than the national average of 1.099. This suggests the center is more prone to this specific risk than its peers, constituting a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile in hyper-authored output (Z-score: -1.286), a finding consistent with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -1.024). This absence of risk signals is a positive indicator of good practice. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts, high rates can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The University's data suggests its research culture effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and problematic 'honorary' authorship, thereby promoting transparency.
The institution shows a very low-risk Z-score of -1.045 in the gap between its overall impact and the impact of its own led research, aligning well with the low-risk national context (Z-score: -0.292). This absence of a significant positive gap is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is built upon real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not on a strategic dependency where prestige is derived from collaborations in which it does not lead.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a complete absence of signals related to hyperprolific authors, a profile even more conservative than the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.067). This demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and scientific rigor. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This result suggests the institution fosters an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume, avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or credit without real participation.
The institution’s Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is almost identical to the national average of -0.250, indicating perfect alignment with a secure national environment. This integrity synchrony shows that the institution is not overly dependent on its in-house journals, a practice that can raise conflicts of interest. By avoiding this, it mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.
The institution's Z-score of 0.414 for redundant output, while in the medium-risk range, is significantly lower than the national average of 0.720. This reflects a differentiated management strategy that successfully moderates a practice more prevalent in the wider system. A high value in this indicator alerts to 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's better control suggests a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific record for metric-based gains.
