| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.113 | -0.927 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | 0.279 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.179 | 0.520 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.008 | 1.099 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.294 | -1.024 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.557 | -0.292 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.067 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.250 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.063 | 0.720 |
GD Goenka University demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.230 indicating performance that is well-aligned with, and in many areas superior to, national standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyper-authored output, and hyperprolific authors, suggesting a culture of responsible and transparent research conduct. Key areas for strategic attention are the moderate risks associated with publication in discontinued journals and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university shows particular strength in thematic areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. While the institution's strong integrity foundation supports its mission to foster "values and professional ethics," the identified risks could challenge the pursuit of holistic excellence and the development of "innovators" and "socially responsible leaders." To fully align its practices with its ambitions, the university is encouraged to enhance its publication guidance strategies and cultivate internal research leadership, thereby ensuring its impact is both sustainable and self-generated.
The institution exhibits an exemplary profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.113, which is even lower than the national average of -0.927. This indicates a complete absence of risk signals related to affiliation practices, positioning the university as a leader in transparency. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's operational silence in this metric suggests that its collaborative frameworks are clear and its researchers' affiliations are managed with exceptional integrity, avoiding any ambiguity or "affiliation shopping" and setting a standard of good practice.
With a Z-score of -0.343, significantly below the national average of 0.279, the institution demonstrates strong institutional resilience against the systemic risks of publication failure observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting errors, a high rate can suggest systemic failures in quality control. The university's low score indicates that its pre-publication review and quality assurance mechanisms are effective, fostering an integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that might otherwise lead to a higher retraction rate.
The university shows a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.179 compared to the country's medium-risk average of 0.520. This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of academic endogamy observed in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but high rates can signal 'echo chambers' that inflate impact without external validation. The institution's performance strongly suggests its research is validated by the broader global community, avoiding any risk of endogamous impact inflation and demonstrating a commitment to external scrutiny and genuine academic influence.
The institution's Z-score of 1.008, while indicating a medium risk, is slightly below the national average of 1.099, suggesting a degree of differentiated management in a challenging environment. This performance shows the university is moderating a risk that appears common across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it can expose an institution to severe reputational risks. The current level suggests a need to reinforce information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid channeling valuable work through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution maintains a profile of low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -1.294, which is well below the national average of -1.024. This complete absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with a national context that already shows low risk. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, high rates can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's very low score confirms that its authorship practices are transparent and appropriate for its disciplines, effectively distinguishing between necessary collaboration and any potential for 'honorary' authorship.
A moderate deviation is observed in this indicator, with the institution's Z-score of 1.557 contrasting with the national average of -0.292. This suggests the university is more sensitive to this specific risk factor than its national peers. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external partners than on its own structural capacity. It invites a strategic reflection on fostering internal intellectual leadership to ensure that its excellence metrics are a direct result of its own growing research capabilities.
With a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.067, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency and an absence of risk signals in an area where the country already performs well. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's exceptionally low score indicates a healthy balance in researcher productivity, reinforcing an environment where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over sheer publication volume.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.250, demonstrating integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This indicates that the university avoids any over-reliance on its own publication channels. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The university's negligible rate in this indicator confirms its commitment to external validation and global visibility for its research output.
The university shows significant institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.063 in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.720. This performance indicates that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. High bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's low score suggests its researchers are focused on producing significant, coherent contributions to knowledge, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoiding practices that prioritize volume over substance.
