| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.749 | -0.514 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.211 | -0.126 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.193 | -0.566 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.109 | -0.415 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.927 | 0.594 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.987 | 0.284 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.847 | -0.275 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.220 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.245 | 0.027 |
CUNY School of Medicine demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, reflected in its low global risk score of 0.356. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining scientific independence and ethical authorship practices, with very low risk in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation and the Gap between total and led-research impact. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant rate of retracted output and medium-risk signals related to publishing in discontinued journals and potential data fragmentation. The institution's primary thematic strength, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, is in Medicine, where it is ranked 224th in the United States. These identified risks, particularly concerning the reliability and quality of its scientific record, directly challenge its mission "to offer an affordable education to a broad student population." A reputation for questionable research integrity can undermine the perceived value and quality of its educational programs, potentially impacting its ability to attract students and resources. To fully align its operational excellence with its social mission, it is recommended that the institution leverage its robust governance in authorship and citation to implement targeted interventions that strengthen pre-publication quality control and enhance information literacy regarding dissemination channels.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.749, which is slightly lower than the national average of -0.514. This indicates a prudent and well-managed approach to research collaborations. The institution's processes appear to be more rigorous than the national standard, ensuring that affiliations are clearly and appropriately justified. This careful management helps prevent the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" and ensures that institutional credit is claimed legitimately, reinforcing a culture of transparency in its collaborative network.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.211, a figure that marks a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.126. This atypical level of risk activity is a critical alert, suggesting a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. While some retractions can result from honest error correction, a rate this far above the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This situation requires a deep and urgent integrity assessment to understand the root causes, as it may indicate recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that needs immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's scientific credibility.
With a Z-score of -1.193, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, well below the national average of -0.566. This result reflects a healthy pattern of external validation and integration within the global scientific community. The absence of risk signals in this area aligns with the low-risk national standard, confirming that the institution avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This indicates that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.109 represents a medium-risk level, creating a monitoring alert as it is an unusual signal for a national standard that is otherwise very low (-0.415). This divergence requires a review of the causes behind the selection of publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This score indicates that a portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need to improve information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution's Z-score for hyper-authorship is -0.927, a low-risk value that contrasts with the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed elsewhere in the country. This positive result suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship practices, thereby promoting individual accountability and transparency in its research projects.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.987, a very low-risk signal that indicates a strong and autonomous research capacity. This performance represents a preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average Z-score is 0.284. The institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of dependency observed in its environment. A low score here is a sign of health, suggesting that its scientific prestige is structural and generated from internal capacity, as the impact of research led by its own authors is consistent with its overall impact. This reflects true intellectual leadership rather than a dependency on external collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.847, the institution maintains a prudent profile regarding author productivity, performing more rigorously than the national standard (-0.275). This low-risk indicator suggests that the institution fosters a research environment that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. By avoiding extreme publication volumes from individuals, the institution mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, thereby safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record and promoting a balanced academic culture.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.220, both at a very low-risk level. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. The institution's practices are perfectly aligned with an environment of maximum scientific security, showing no excessive dependence on its own journals. This ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.245, while in the medium-risk category, indicates a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.027. This suggests the center is more prone to showing alert signals for data fragmentation or "salami slicing." A high value in this indicator warns that researchers may be dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
