Texas A&M University, San Antonio

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Texas A&M University-San Antonio demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.540 that indicates robust governance and a culture of responsible research conduct. The institution exhibits very low to low risk across all nine indicators, with particular strengths in preventing hyper-authored and redundant output, where it effectively isolates itself from less favorable national trends. This outstanding performance directly supports its mission to deliver a "quality higher education experience," as ethical research practices are the bedrock of academic excellence and credibility. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest research areas include Psychology, Business, Management and Accounting, Arts and Humanities, and Social Sciences. By maintaining such high standards of integrity, the institution not only safeguards its reputation but also provides an exemplary model of responsible conduct for its predominantly first-generation student body, empowering them for "academic success" and "engaged global citizenship" in a world that demands transparency and accountability. To continue this positive trajectory, we recommend leveraging these strengths as a hallmark of institutional quality while addressing the minor divergence in publication channel selection to ensure all research outputs align with its commitment to global excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's very low Z-score of -0.905, compared to the country's low score of -0.514, demonstrates a commendable alignment with national standards of integrity. This absence of risk signals suggests that affiliations are managed transparently. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's data shows no signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of clear and honest academic attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.193, which is lower than the national average of -0.126, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in managing its published output, suggesting that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, but the institution's lower-than-average rate indicates that its pre-publication review processes are effective in preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that can lead to a high volume of retractions, thereby safeguarding its integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a prudent approach to citation practices, with a Z-score of -0.729, notably lower than the national average of -0.566. This indicates more rigorous management of its citation patterns compared to its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines; however, the institution's low rate shows it successfully avoids the risks of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This demonstrates that its academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.194, while still in the low-risk category, represents a slight divergence from the very low national average of -0.415. This indicates a minor but noticeable signal of risk activity not typically seen across the country. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals may be due to lack of information, but this deviation suggests a need to enhance due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It serves as a constructive alert to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thus preventing potential reputational risk.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends, with an extremely low Z-score of -1.140 in contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.594. This shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of author list inflation observed elsewhere. In disciplines where extensive author lists are not the norm, a high rate can indicate a dilution of individual accountability. The institution's profile, however, indicates a strong culture of transparency in authorship, effectively distinguishing its collaborative practices from potentially 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution shows significant resilience, with a Z-score of -0.633, effectively mitigating the systemic risks of impact dependency seen at the national level (Z-score: 0.284). A very wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners. However, this institution's negative gap indicates that the impact of research led by its own authors is strong, suggesting that its scientific prestige is structural and internally generated. This reflects a sustainable model of excellence built on real internal capacity rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a very low Z-score of -1.413 compared to the national average of -0.275, the institution shows an exemplary low-risk profile that aligns with national standards for responsible productivity. This absence of hyperprolific authors suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's data indicates it effectively avoids risks such as coercive authorship or assigning authorship without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with the secure national environment (Z-score: -0.220). This indicates that the institution does not rely excessively on its own journals for dissemination. While in-house journals can be valuable for training, the institution's practice avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to external, independent peer review ensures its scientific production achieves global visibility and is validated through standard competitive channels, rather than using internal 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution achieves a state of preventive isolation, with a very low Z-score of -1.186 that stands in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.027. This indicates that the institution does not replicate the national trend of redundant publications. While citing previous work is necessary, the institution's data shows no signs of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This reflects a commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than distorting scientific evidence.