| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.745 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.400 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.348 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.279 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.401 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.656 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
2.603 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
The Indian Institute of Management Bodh Gaya demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.246. The institution's performance is characterized by a commendable absence of risk signals across most indicators, particularly in areas where national trends show vulnerability, such as retracted output, institutional self-citation, and redundant publications. This indicates strong internal governance and a culture of quality. This commitment to academic rigor is foundational to its strengths in key thematic areas, with SCImago Institutions Rankings data highlighting its prominent national standing in Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 20th in India), Psychology (27th), and Business, Management and Accounting (82nd). However, a significant outlier in the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors (Z-score: 2.603) presents a critical challenge. This anomaly directly conflicts with the institutional mission to foster "academic excellence" and "social responsibility," as it suggests a potential imbalance between publication quantity and meaningful intellectual contribution. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the institution is advised to conduct a targeted review of its authorship and publication policies. Addressing this single vulnerability will solidify its otherwise exemplary integrity framework and reinforce its role in developing mindful and responsible global leaders.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.745, while the national average is -0.927. This result indicates a slight divergence from the national context, where such risk signals are almost non-existent. The institution shows a minimal but observable level of activity in this area. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation suggests the emergence of practices that, if unmonitored, could evolve into strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." A proactive review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they align with collaborative best practices rather than metric-driven incentives.
With a Z-score of -0.400, the institution demonstrates an excellent record, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.279, which indicates a medium level of risk. This performance signifies a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Retractions can be complex, but a high rate often suggests systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. The institution's very low score indicates that its mechanisms for ensuring methodological rigor and integrity are effective, protecting it from the vulnerabilities affecting the broader national system and reinforcing its commitment to a responsible scientific culture.
The institution's Z-score of -1.348 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 0.520, which falls into a medium risk category. This demonstrates a successful preventive isolation from national trends. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers' that inflate impact through endogamous validation. The institution's minimal self-citation rate is a strong indicator of its integration into the global scientific community, showing that its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics, thus avoiding the risk of a skewed or isolated research profile.
The institution's Z-score of -0.279 is significantly healthier than the national average of 1.099. This comparison highlights a notable institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks prevalent at the country level. Publishing in discontinued journals often points to a lack of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing research to reputational damage from 'predatory' or low-quality media. The institution's low score suggests its researchers are well-informed and selective, effectively filtering out substandard publication venues and safeguarding its academic resources and reputation.
The institution's Z-score of -1.401 is very low, slightly better than the already low national average of -1.024. This result reflects a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance in other fields can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's very low score confirms that its collaborative practices are transparent and appropriately scaled, avoiding any suggestion of 'honorary' or political authorship and maintaining clear individual accountability.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.656, which is lower than the national average of -0.292. Both scores are in a low-risk band, but the institution's result points to a more prudent profile. This indicates that the institution manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact, suggesting prestige is exogenous rather than structural. The institution's controlled, negative score is a healthy sign of scientific autonomy, indicating that its recognized impact is generated through research where it exercises genuine intellectual leadership, ensuring its excellence is sustainable and built on internal capacity.
The institution's Z-score of 2.603 represents a significant risk and a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.067. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This critical indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to urgent risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. These dynamics prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and demand an immediate and thorough review of authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's performance is almost identical to the national average of -0.250. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them creates conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The institution's negligible rate of publication in its own journals confirms its commitment to external, competitive validation and global visibility, ensuring its research is assessed by the broader international community.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.186, a very low-risk value that marks a clear separation from the national average of 0.720, which indicates medium risk. This is a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution avoids a problematic practice common in its environment. High bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of a single study into multiple minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's extremely low score shows a strong commitment to publishing complete, significant research, thereby respecting the scientific record and avoiding practices that prioritize volume over new knowledge.
