Gaming the metrics: bibliometric anomalies in global university rankings and the research integrity risk index (RI2)

Abstract The expansion of university rankings has intensified competition among institutions and reshaped research priorities worldwide. Bibliometric indicators underpin many of these rankings, and their growing influence has raised concerns about systemic distortions in scholarly behavior. This study investigates publication and authorship patterns among the world’s 88 fastest-growing research universities across two periods (2018–2019 and 2023–2024) to assess whether rapid rank mobility coincides with bibliometric anomalies indicative of metric-driven practices. The analysis identified 21 institutions with trajectories sharply diverging from global and regional norms, characterized by steep declines in first and corresponding authorship, disproportionate surges in STEM output, rising numbers of hyper-prolific authors, and elevated exposure to integrity-related risks. To systematically identify and quantify such risks, the study introduces the Research Integrity Risk Index (RI 2 ). This field-normalized composite metric integrates publications in delisted journals, retractions, and self-citation shares, and classifies institutions across five integrity-risk tiers. Applied to the study cohort, RI 2 clearly distinguishes high-risk from benchmark institutions, providing a transparent framework for detecting systemic vulnerabilities, strengthening accountability in global research evaluation, and shifting the focus from performance maximization to integrity-sensitive assessment and governance.