| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.486 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.366 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.325 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.094 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.930 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.006 | 0.720 |
The Indian Institute of Information Technology, Sri City, demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.604. The institution exhibits exceptional performance in mitigating risks associated with academic endogamy and impact dependency, showing very low rates of institutional self-citation and a negligible gap between its overall impact and that generated under its own leadership. This strong foundation in research ethics is a key asset that supports its notable thematic strengths, particularly in Engineering, Computer Science, and Mathematics, where it holds competitive national rankings according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, a notable vulnerability is the rate of redundant output, which exceeds the national average and presents a potential conflict with the institutional mission to "attain individual excellence." Prioritizing publication volume over substantive contribution could undermine this core value. To fully align its operational practices with its strategic vision, the institution is encouraged to maintain its excellent control mechanisms while implementing targeted guidance for authors to foster more impactful and consolidated research outputs.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.486, which is even lower than the country's already minimal average of -0.927. This signifies a complete operational silence regarding this risk indicator, suggesting an environment free from the pressures that can lead to strategic "affiliation shopping." The data indicates that the institution's affiliation practices are exceptionally clear and transparent, with no signals of attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, a performance that surpasses the national standard.
With a Z-score of -0.343, the institution demonstrates significant institutional resilience when compared to the national average of 0.279. This contrast suggests that while the national system may face some challenges, the institute's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating these systemic risks. A high rate of retractions can signal failing quality controls, but the institution's low score indicates a healthy and responsible scientific culture where potential errors are managed effectively, preventing the emergence of patterns of recurring malpractice.
The institution's Z-score of -1.366 marks a clear preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average is 0.520. This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, successfully avoiding the creation of scientific "echo chambers." While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the institution's exceptionally low rate demonstrates that its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.325 against a national average of 1.099, the institution shows remarkable resilience and diligence. This performance indicates that its control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks present in the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals would be a critical alert regarding the selection of dissemination channels, but the institution's low score suggests its researchers exercise strong due diligence, protecting its reputation and resources from predatory or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.094 is in close alignment with the national average of -1.024, indicating a state of statistical normality. This level of activity is as expected for its context and size. The data suggests that authorship practices are consistent with disciplinary norms and do not show signals of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability through "honorary" authorship, which can become a risk when this indicator is high.
With a Z-score of -1.930, far below the national average of -0.292, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency and exceptional scientific autonomy. This near-zero gap indicates that its academic prestige is structurally sound and built upon genuine internal capacity, not dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where excellence is exogenous; however, this institution's performance confirms that its impact is a direct result of its own intellectual leadership.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -1.413, significantly lower than the national benchmark of -0.067. This demonstrates a consistent and low-risk profile, suggesting a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes indicates that the institution effectively avoids the risks associated with hyper-prolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in near-perfect alignment with the country's average of -0.250, reflecting a shared commitment to scientific security. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a strong preference for external, independent peer review. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research is validated through competitive global channels rather than internal "fast tracks."
The institution's Z-score of 2.006 indicates a high exposure to this risk, placing it above the national average of 0.720. This suggests that the center is more prone than its peers to practices that may fragment research. A high value in this indicator serves as an alert for "salami slicing," where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice warrants review, as it can distort the scientific evidence base and prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
