| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.199 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.099 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.431 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.171 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.201 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.061 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.379 | 0.720 |
The Sinhgad Group of Educational Institutes presents a complex integrity profile, marked by areas of exceptional control alongside specific, critical vulnerabilities. With an overall risk score of 0.440, the institution demonstrates outstanding performance in managing risks related to academic endogamy and authorship standards, with very low indicators for Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals. These strengths provide a solid foundation of scientific integrity. However, this is contrasted by a significant risk in the Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals and medium risks in Multiple Affiliations and Redundant Output. The institution's thematic excellence, as evidenced by its strong national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Dentistry, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, is a testament to its research capabilities. Yet, the identified risks, especially the reliance on low-quality publication channels, directly challenge its mission to provide "Value based quality Education" and achieve a "Benchmark beyond Emulation." To fully align its operational practices with its ambitious vision, the institution is advised to urgently address its publication strategy, ensuring that its powerful research output is disseminated through channels that reflect its commitment to quality and integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.199, indicating a medium risk level that stands in sharp contrast to the national average of -0.927, which is in the very low-risk category. This disparity signals a monitoring alert, as the institution's affiliation practices are highly unusual for the national standard and warrant a review of their underlying causes. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, a rate this far above the national norm may suggest strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This divergence requires an internal examination to ensure that all declared affiliations are substantive and align with the institution's collaborative and integrity policies.
With a Z-score of -0.099, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, a positive result when compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.279. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. A high rate of retractions can indicate a failure in pre-publication quality control, but this institution's low score suggests that its processes for supervision and methodological rigor are robust, successfully preventing the types of recurring errors or malpractice that are more prevalent in its environment.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.431, a very low-risk value that is significantly healthier than the national average of 0.520 (medium risk). This indicates a state of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics common in its environment. A high rate of self-citation can create scientific 'echo chambers' and artificially inflate impact. By contrast, this institution's very low score demonstrates a strong connection with the global scientific community, indicating that its academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny rather than through endogamous or internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 3.171 places it in the significant risk category, a critical finding that is substantially worse than the country's medium-risk average of 1.099. This situation points to a risk accentuation, where the institution is not only following a problematic national trend but is amplifying it to a critical degree. This high Z-score is a severe alert regarding the due diligence applied to selecting publication venues. It indicates that a significant portion of its scientific output is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational damage and signaling an urgent need for information literacy training to prevent the waste of resources on predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -1.201, the institution shows a very low risk of hyper-authorship, performing even better than the country's low-risk average of -1.024. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with, and improves upon, the national standard. This score indicates that the institution's authorship practices are well-governed, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and inappropriate 'honorary' authorships. It reflects a culture of transparency and individual accountability in the assignment of credit for research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.061 (low risk) is numerically higher than the national average of -0.292 (low risk). Although both are within a low-risk band, this difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. The score indicates that the institution's scientific prestige may be slightly more dependent on external partners for impact than is typical for its peers in the country. While not an immediate concern, this invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from a supporting role in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a dynamic that could pose a risk to long-term sustainability.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.413, a very low-risk value that is markedly superior to the national low-risk average of -0.067. This result shows low-profile consistency and exemplary performance in this area. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. This institution's very low score indicates it effectively avoids the risks of coercive authorship or prioritizing quantity over quality, fostering a research environment that values the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's very low-risk profile is almost identical to the national average of -0.250. This demonstrates integrity synchrony, reflecting a total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this regard. Excessive reliance on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The institution's score confirms its commitment to using independent, external peer review channels for disseminating its research, thereby ensuring its work is validated competitively and achieves global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.379 places it in the medium-risk category, as does the national average of 0.720. However, the institution's score is significantly lower than the country's, indicating a differentiated management approach. This suggests that while the institution is not immune to the nationally prevalent risk of 'salami slicing'—fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity—it is moderating this practice more effectively than its peers. This reflects a better-than-average effort to prioritize the publication of significant, coherent knowledge over sheer volume, though continued vigilance is recommended.
