| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.540 | 2.540 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | -0.409 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.483 | -0.483 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.358 | 0.358 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.928 | -0.928 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.242 | -0.242 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.926 | 1.926 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -1.186 |
St. George’s University demonstrates a solid overall performance in scientific integrity, with a global risk score of 0.227 indicating a generally healthy research environment. The institution exhibits significant strengths in areas critical to academic credibility, including very low rates of retracted output, redundant publications, and output in institutional journals, which align perfectly with its mission to contribute meaningfully to the global knowledge base. These strengths are complemented by strong thematic leadership, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Veterinary, Social Sciences, Medicine, and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, where it holds a top national position. However, this profile is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, and Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals. These specific vulnerabilities could subtly undermine the University's commitment to "professionalism" and "intellectual capacity" by creating perceptions of metric-driven behavior over substantive scientific contribution. To fully realize its international and educational mission, it is recommended that the institution develops targeted strategies and training to address these specific risk areas, thereby ensuring its operational practices are in complete harmony with its stated values of excellence and global responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of 2.540 is identical to the national average for Grenada (2.540), indicating that its medium-risk level for multiple affiliations reflects a systemic pattern within its operational context. This alignment suggests that the factors driving this behavior are likely shared across the national research landscape. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a sustained medium-risk score warrants a review of institutional policies. It is crucial to ensure that these affiliations represent substantive collaborations that enrich the university's international profile, rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the perceived value of its research contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.409, which is perfectly aligned with the national average for Grenada (-0.409), the institution demonstrates an exemplary record in minimizing retracted publications. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, where the university's practices are in total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. A very low rate of retractions is a powerful indicator of robust pre-publication quality control mechanisms and a strong institutional culture of methodological rigor. This absence of risk signals suggests that research is conducted responsibly, and potential errors are effectively managed before they enter the scientific record, reinforcing the university's reputation for credible and reliable scholarship.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.483, a low-risk value that matches the national average for Grenada (-0.483). This score represents a state of statistical normality, indicating that the university's citation practices are appropriate for its context and size. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines; however, this low score confirms that the institution successfully avoids the pitfalls of scientific isolation or creating 'echo chambers.' It suggests that the institution's academic influence is being validated by the broader external community, not artificially inflated by internal dynamics, which is a hallmark of a globally integrated and respected research entity.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.358 for publications in discontinued journals, a medium-risk level that is identical to the national average for Grenada (0.358). This parity points to a systemic pattern and a shared vulnerability in the selection of dissemination channels. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. This Z-score indicates that a segment of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and guidance for researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication venues.
With a Z-score of -0.928, matching the national average for Grenada (-0.928), the institution maintains a low-risk profile for hyper-authored publications. This score reflects statistical normality, suggesting that authorship practices are well-calibrated and transparent. The data indicates that the institution is not showing patterns of author list inflation outside of disciplines where it is common. This serves as a positive signal that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and the integrity of its research contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.242 for the impact gap is identical to the national average for Grenada (-0.242), placing it in a low-risk category that can be considered statistical normality. This healthy balance indicates that the institution's overall scientific prestige is not disproportionately dependent on external partners where it does not hold a leadership role. A low value in this indicator is a sign of sustainable research strength, suggesting that its high-impact work results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being solely a product of strategic positioning in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of 1.926 for hyperprolific authors, which is identical to the national average for Grenada (1.926), signals a medium-risk level that is characteristic of a systemic pattern in the country. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between the quantity and quality of scientific output. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This score warrants a closer examination of authorship practices to mitigate risks such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.268, which is in perfect alignment with the national average for Grenada (-0.268), the institution shows a very low rate of publication in its own journals. This demonstrates integrity synchrony with a secure national environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the university effectively avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and reinforcing the credibility of its research findings in the international academic community.
The institution's Z-score of -1.186 for redundant output, identical to the national average for Grenada (-1.186), places it in the very low-risk category and signifies integrity synchrony with its environment. This excellent result indicates that the practice of 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications—is not a concern. The absence of this risk signal suggests a strong institutional focus on producing significant, coherent bodies of work rather than artificially inflating publication counts. This commitment to substance over volume protects the integrity of the scientific evidence base and reflects a mature and responsible research culture.
