| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.883 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.333 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.162 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.160 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.335 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.347 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.178 | 0.720 |
Cooch Behar Panchanan Barma University presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.142 indicating performance that is generally aligned with global standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths and a commendable absence of risk in several key areas, including a very low rate of hyper-prolific and hyper-authored output, minimal use of institutional journals, and a negligible rate of multiple affiliations. These results signal a culture of transparency and accountability in authorship and publication practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention are concentrated in the medium-risk indicators, specifically the Rate of Retracted Output and a high Rate of Institutional Self-Citation, which suggest vulnerabilities in pre-publication quality control and a potential for academic insularity. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows notable research capacity in thematic areas such as Chemistry, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Environmental Science, and Physics and Astronomy. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, particularly those related to self-citation and retractions, could undermine any mission centered on achieving research excellence and contributing responsibly to society. By proactively addressing these vulnerabilities, the university can better leverage its thematic strengths, enhance its global reputation, and ensure its operational practices fully support its academic ambitions.
With a Z-score of -0.883, which is in close alignment with the national average of -0.927, the institution demonstrates perfect synchrony with a national environment of maximum scientific security. This alignment indicates that the university's policies and researcher practices regarding affiliations are transparent and standard. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used strategically to inflate institutional credit, the complete absence of risk signals at both the institutional and national levels confirms that collaborative work is being credited legitimately, reflecting genuine partnerships rather than "affiliation shopping."
The institution's Z-score of 0.333 for retracted output is slightly higher than the national average of 0.279, indicating a greater exposure to the factors that lead to retractions compared to its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly above the global average, as suggested by this score, can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more often than is typical for the country, pointing to a potential for recurring methodological issues that warrant immediate qualitative verification by management.
The university's Z-score of 1.162 is notably higher than the national average of 0.520, revealing a high exposure to the risks associated with this practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or "echo chambers" where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a significant risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution shows differentiated and effective management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.160, which is substantially lower than the national average of 1.099. This indicates that the university successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common within the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's low score suggests it has strong processes to avoid channeling its research through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting itself from the severe reputational risks associated with "predatory" practices.
With a Z-score of -1.335, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even stronger than, the national standard (Z-score of -1.024). The absence of risk signals in this area demonstrates a healthy approach to authorship. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," their absence here suggests that the university effectively avoids practices like author list inflation or "honorary" authorships, thereby ensuring that individual accountability and transparency in research contributions are maintained.
The university exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.347, slightly more favorable than the national average of -0.292. This indicates that the institution manages its research processes with more rigor than the national standard, resulting in a smaller gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. A wide gap can signal a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. This institution's score, however, suggests that its scientific excellence results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, reflecting a sustainable and structurally independent research model.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 signifies a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors, a profile that is significantly stronger than the low-risk national standard (-0.067). This result is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. It suggests the university is free from dynamics such as coercive authorship or extreme "salami slicing," where individuals might publish an unfeasible number of articles, thus ensuring the integrity of the scientific record and the meaningfulness of each contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the university's practices are in total alignment with the national average of -0.250, reflecting an environment of maximum security against academic endogamy. The negligible rate of publication in its own journals demonstrates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated competitively by the global community, enhancing its visibility and credibility while avoiding potential conflicts of interest or the use of internal channels as "fast tracks" to inflate publication counts.
The institution demonstrates differentiated management of this risk, with a Z-score of 0.178 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.720. This suggests the university actively moderates practices that are more common in its environment. A high rate of redundant output often indicates data fragmentation or "salami slicing" to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining a low score, the university shows a commitment to publishing significant, coherent studies over minimal publishable units, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence and contributing more meaningfully to its fields.
