| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.281 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
6.842 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.380 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.223 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.009 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.279 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.234 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.720 |
Sir Padampat Singhania University presents a complex scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in authorship and affiliation practices but offset by critical vulnerabilities in publication quality control. With an overall risk score of 2.242, the institution demonstrates exemplary performance in areas such as Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Redundant Output, and Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, indicating robust internal governance. However, these strengths are critically undermined by a significant risk in the Rate of Retracted Output and medium-risk signals in publication in discontinued journals and a dependency on external partners for impact. These findings are particularly relevant given the University's strong national positioning in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in Business, Management and Accounting (ranked 19th in India), Computer Science, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. The detected risks, especially concerning retractions and questionable publication venues, directly challenge the core mission to "propel young, inquisitive minds in pursuit of innovation and excellence" and develop "ethical" global citizens. To fully align its practices with its mission, the University should leverage its strong governance in authorship to implement urgent, targeted interventions aimed at reinforcing pre-publication review and enhancing information literacy regarding dissemination channels, thereby ensuring its research output genuinely reflects the high standards it espouses.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.281, significantly lower than the national average of -0.927, the University demonstrates total operational silence regarding multiple affiliation risks. This absence of risk signals, even when compared to an already low-risk national environment, points to an exceptionally clear and transparent affiliation policy. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's data shows no evidence of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative framework and the clarity of its researchers' contributions.
The University's Z-score for retracted output is 6.842, a critical value that starkly contrasts with the moderate national average of 0.279. This finding suggests the institution is amplifying a vulnerability present in the national system, pointing to a severe challenge in its quality control mechanisms. Retractions can sometimes result from honest corrections, but a rate this significantly higher than the global average is a major alert for a systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It indicates that possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may be present, requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.380, reflecting a moderate risk level that is notably lower than the national average of 0.520. This indicates a differentiated and more effective management approach, successfully moderating a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University's controlled rate suggests it is effectively avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its work is validated with sufficient external scrutiny rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of 2.223, compared to the national average of 1.099, the University shows a high exposure to publishing in journals that are later discontinued. This indicates the institution is more prone to this risk than its national peers, constituting a critical alert regarding its due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This high Z-score suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The University's Z-score of -1.009 for hyper-authored output is in close alignment with the national average of -1.024, indicating a level of statistical normality. This suggests the institution's risk level is as expected for its context and that its authorship practices are consistent with disciplinary norms. The data does not show any signs of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability, confirming that its collaborative frameworks are consistent with standard national practices and do not pose a risk to transparency.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.279 in this indicator, a moderate deviation from the national score of -0.292, which is in a low-risk category. This shows the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, as it suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution maintains a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.234, which is well below the national average of -0.067. This demonstrates that the center manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard in this area. By effectively controlling extreme individual publication volumes, the institution mitigates potential imbalances between quantity and quality, avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and thereby prioritizing the integrity of its scientific record over inflated metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the University's rate of publication in its own journals is in complete alignment with the very low-risk national standard of -0.250. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution successfully mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and undergoes independent external peer review for standard competitive validation.
The University shows a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a near-total absence of redundant output, which contrasts sharply with the moderate risk level seen at the national level (0.720). This demonstrates a preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. This strong performance alerts to a culture that discourages the practice of dividing a coherent study into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity, thereby protecting the scientific evidence it produces and prioritizing significant new knowledge over volume.
