| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.882 | 0.597 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | -0.088 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.870 | -0.673 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.443 | -0.436 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.313 | 0.587 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.549 | 0.147 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.481 | -0.155 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.627 | -0.155 |
Bangor University presents a strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.230 indicating robust internal governance and a healthy research culture. The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in several key areas, showing very low risk signals for retracted output, institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output. These strengths suggest that the university's quality control mechanisms are highly effective. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a higher-than-average rate of multiple affiliations and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work led by its own researchers, which signal potential vulnerabilities. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly prominent in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Chemistry, and Mathematics. To fully align with its mission as a "centre of excellence," it is crucial to address the identified risks. An over-reliance on external partners for impact could challenge the long-term sustainability of its excellence, while unmonitored affiliation practices could subtly undermine the transparency and accountability core to its values. By proactively managing these medium-risk indicators, Bangor University can leverage its solid integrity foundation to reinforce its regional, national, and international standing.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.882, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.597. This suggests that the university is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a closer look. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a dynamic that could dilute the university's distinct academic identity and misrepresent its collaborative contributions. A review of affiliation policies is advisable to ensure they promote genuine collaboration over metric inflation.
With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of risk signals in this area, performing better than the national average of -0.088. This low-profile consistency reflects positively on the university's research environment. The data suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively and that the institutional culture of integrity is robust. This performance indicates that there are no systemic vulnerabilities related to methodological rigor or potential malpractice, reinforcing the university's commitment to producing reliable and high-quality scientific output.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.870, significantly below the national average of -0.673. This excellent result demonstrates a strong alignment with best practices and an even lower risk profile than the national standard. The data indicates that the university's research is validated by the broader scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-referencing. This external recognition confirms that the institution's academic influence is built on global engagement rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy and outwardly-focused research ecosystem.
The institution's Z-score of -0.443 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.436, indicating complete synchrony with a secure national environment. This result shows that the university's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels for their work. The absence of this risk signal confirms that institutional resources are not being wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality publications, thereby protecting the university's reputation and ensuring its scientific output appears in credible and ethically sound venues.
The institution's Z-score of 0.313, while indicating a medium-risk environment, is considerably lower than the national average of 0.587. This suggests a differentiated management approach where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. Although extensive author lists can be legitimate in "Big Science" contexts, this indicator often points to the risk of author list inflation. The university's relative control suggests it is more effective than its peers at distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby promoting greater individual accountability.
With a Z-score of 0.549, the institution shows a high exposure to this risk, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.147. This wide positive gap suggests that while the university's overall impact is notable, a substantial portion of this prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being generated by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, as its reputation for excellence may be more reliant on strategic positioning in collaborations than on its own structural capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to foster and showcase the impact of its internally-led research.
The institution's Z-score of -0.481 is well below the national average of -0.155, reflecting a prudent and rigorous profile in managing author productivity. This indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, steering clear of the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. By maintaining this control, the university effectively mitigates the potential for practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, thus upholding the integrity of its scientific record and prioritizing significant contributions over sheer metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average of -0.262, demonstrating integrity synchrony and full alignment with a national environment that prioritizes external validation. This near-absence of reliance on in-house journals is a strong positive signal, as it shows the university avoids potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This commitment to independent external peer review ensures its scientific production is competitively validated, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.627, the institution shows a near-complete absence of this risk, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.155. This low-profile consistency is a strong indicator of a research culture that values substance over volume. The data suggests that the university's researchers are focused on producing coherent studies with significant new knowledge, rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting data into minimal publishable units. This practice upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the academic review system.
