South East European University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

South East European University presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 3.031 reflecting both areas of exceptional governance and specific, critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates remarkable strength and control in several key areas, showing very low risk in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Hyper-Authored Output, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output. This indicates robust internal policies that effectively prevent common integrity risks. However, this positive performance is severely counterbalanced by a critical alert in the Rate of Retracted Output and notable medium-risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors. These weaknesses directly challenge the University's mission to achieve "excellence in teaching and research," as a high volume of retractions and questionable publication practices undermine the credibility and quality of its scientific contributions. Despite these integrity challenges, the University holds a leadership position within Macedonia, ranking first according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data in key thematic areas such as Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; and Social Sciences. To safeguard its academic prestige and fully align its practices with its mission, the University should leverage its demonstrated strengths in governance to implement targeted interventions that address the identified high-risk areas, thereby ensuring its research excellence is built on a foundation of unquestionable integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University demonstrates an exemplary profile regarding multiple affiliations, with a Z-score of -1.549, which is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.950. This complete absence of risk signals indicates robust and transparent affiliation practices. The institution's performance suggests that its collaborative activities are managed with exceptional integrity, avoiding any ambiguity or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping" and setting a high standard for the national system.

Rate of Retracted Output

The University's Z-score for retracted output is 10.551, a figure that not only represents a critical internal alert but also positions it as a significant outlier within a national context already facing challenges (Z-score 0.911). This severe discrepancy suggests that the institution is amplifying vulnerabilities present in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the global average points to a systemic failure in pre-publication quality control. This is more than a series of individual errors; it signals a profound vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and deep qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of 0.101, the University shows a greater sensitivity to the risks of institutional self-citation compared to its national peers, who exhibit a low-risk profile (Z-score -0.733). This moderate deviation from the national norm warrants attention. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University's Z-score of 1.400 for output in discontinued journals indicates it is slightly more exposed to this risk than the national average (Z-score 1.348). This pattern suggests a shared vulnerability at the national level, but one that is more pronounced within the institution. A high proportion of publications in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and suggesting a need for enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The University effectively isolates itself from the risk of hyper-authorship, registering a Z-score of -1.311 in a national environment where this practice presents a medium-level risk (Z-score 0.363). This demonstrates that the institution's internal governance successfully prevents the replication of risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. This strong performance indicates that authorship practices are well-regulated, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby ensuring individual accountability and transparency.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The University shows exceptional strength in its research leadership, with a Z-score of -2.366, indicating that the impact of its research is driven by work where its authors have leadership roles. This performance is particularly noteworthy as it runs contrary to the national trend, where a medium-risk gap is observed (Z-score 2.167). This result signifies that the institution is not replicating the risk of dependency seen in its environment. It suggests that the University's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, resulting from real internal capacity rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

An alert for monitoring is raised by the University's Z-score of 0.053 for hyperprolific authors, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the national standard, which shows no risk signals (Z-score -1.166). This unusual divergence from a healthy national baseline requires a review of its underlying causes. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator points to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, alerting to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the University demonstrates a clear disconnection from the medium-risk practices related to publishing in institutional journals that are present at the national level (Z-score 0.541). This preventive isolation shows that the institution does not rely on its own journals for dissemination. This is a sign of strong governance, as it avoids the conflicts of interest that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. By favoring external, independent peer review, the University ensures its research undergoes competitive validation, enhances its global visibility, and avoids the risk of academic endogamy.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University maintains a low-profile consistency in its publication practices, with a Z-score of -1.186 for redundant output, which aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.430). The absence of risk signals in this area indicates that the institution's research output is not characterized by data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This suggests a healthy academic culture that prioritizes the publication of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.