Indian Institute of Management, Nagpur

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Indian Institute of Management, Nagpur, presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.106 indicating a performance that is well-aligned with sound research practices, albeit with specific, high-impact areas requiring strategic attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication channels and citation practices, demonstrating very low risk in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and Redundant Output. This showcases a strong capacity to operate independently of certain medium-risk trends prevalent at the national level. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a 'significant' risk in the gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its self-led work, and a 'medium' risk related to the presence of hyperprolific authors. These challenges must be contextualized within the institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas, including its rankings within India for Economics, Econometrics and Finance (63rd), Business, Management and Accounting (87th), and Social Sciences (104th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The identified risks directly challenge the institutional mission of "engaged scholarship" that serves its stakeholders. A heavy reliance on external leadership for impact may undermine its goal of being a primary academic driver for industry and society, while hyper-prolificacy could compromise the quality of scholarship intended for learners and faculty. By strategically addressing these two key areas—fostering greater intellectual leadership and ensuring a sustainable balance between productivity and quality—the institution can fully align its operational reality with its stated mission of excellence and societal contribution.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.750 indicates a low-risk signal that diverges slightly from the country's very low-risk baseline of -0.927. This suggests the emergence of risk activity that is not yet apparent in the broader national context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick compared to an otherwise inert national environment warrants proactive monitoring. It is an early indicator to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect genuine, substantive collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping”.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.212, the institution maintains a low rate of retractions, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.279. This performance suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider environment. While retractions can sometimes reflect responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors, a nationally higher rate can point to systemic vulnerabilities. The institution's ability to keep this indicator low suggests its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust, successfully protecting its integrity culture from the recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that may be affecting peers.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -1.867 is in the very low-risk category, a figure that highlights a clear and positive isolation from the medium-risk national trend (Z-score: 0.520). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the natural continuity of research, the higher national average warns of a tendency toward 'echo chambers'. The institution's exceptionally low score confirms that its academic influence is validated by the broader scientific community, successfully avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation and ensuring its work receives sufficient external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates excellent due diligence with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.545, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk practices seen at the national level (Z-score: 1.099). This preventive stance is critical for safeguarding institutional reputation. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals, as suggested by the national trend, constitutes a critical alert regarding the selection of dissemination channels. The institution's strong performance indicates it is successfully channeling its scientific production away from media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby avoiding reputational damage and the waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a very low-risk Z-score of -1.226, the institution's performance is consistent with the low-risk national standard of -1.024. The absence of significant risk signals at both the institutional and national levels indicates a healthy alignment in authorship practices. This low-profile consistency suggests that, within the institution's disciplinary context, author lists are not being inflated. This serves as a positive signal that practices such as 'honorary' or political authorship, which dilute individual accountability and transparency, are not a concern.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

A severe discrepancy is noted in this indicator, where the institution's significant-risk Z-score of 3.303 stands in stark contrast to the low-risk national average of -0.292. This atypical activity is an outlier that requires a deep integrity assessment. The very wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk: while the institution's overall scientific prestige appears high, it seems to be heavily dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This raises fundamental questions about whether its excellent impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships where its contribution is supportive rather than foundational.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 2.174 places it in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.067. This indicates that the center shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated signal serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is nearly identical to the country's score of -0.250, placing both in the very low-risk category. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. The data confirms that the institution avoids excessive dependence on its own journals, thereby mitigating potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. By favoring external and independent peer review channels, the institution ensures its scientific production is subject to standard competitive validation and achieves greater global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

With a very low-risk Z-score of -1.186, the institution effectively isolates itself from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.720). This preventive disconnection demonstrates a strong commitment to research integrity. The higher national average suggests a broader tendency to fragment coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. The institution's excellent performance here indicates a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the volume of publications, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoiding overburdening the peer review system.