| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.485 | -0.755 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.409 | -0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.895 | 0.660 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.179 | -0.109 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.537 | 0.400 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.611 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.344 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.490 | 0.026 |
Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski University presents an outstandingly robust profile in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of -0.450 that places it in a position of leadership and best practice. The institution demonstrates a remarkable absence of risk signals across the vast majority of indicators, particularly in areas such as Retracted Output, Institutional Self-Citation, and Output in Discontinued Journals, where its performance significantly surpasses national averages. This strong foundation in ethical research practices provides a solid platform for its recognized thematic strengths, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas like Medicine, Psychology, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. While the institutional mission was not available for this analysis, this commitment to integrity aligns intrinsically with the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. The primary strategic challenge identified is the medium-risk gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its direct leadership, suggesting a dependency on external collaborations. To fully capitalize on its excellent integrity framework, the institution is encouraged to focus on fostering internal research leadership, thereby transforming its current reputational solidity into sustainable, self-driven scientific excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.485, while the national average for Poland is -0.755. Although the risk level is low and consistent with the national context, the institution's rate is slightly higher than the country's baseline. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation indicates a trend that, if it grows, could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. It is advisable to ensure that collaborative frameworks continue to prioritize genuine scientific contribution over the passive accumulation of affiliations.
With a Z-score of -0.409, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing significantly better than the national average of -0.058. This reflects a state of low-profile consistency, where the near-total absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the already low-risk national standard. Retractions can be complex, but such a minimal rate strongly suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance is a clear indicator of a mature integrity culture, where potential methodological errors or malpractice are successfully prevented before they enter the scientific record, safeguarding the institution's reputation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.895, in stark contrast to Poland's national average of 0.660, which falls into a medium-risk category. This significant difference illustrates a case of preventive isolation, where the university actively avoids the risk dynamics prevalent in its national environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the country's trend points towards a risk of 'echo chambers'. The institution's very low score, however, demonstrates that its research is validated by the global scientific community, not just through internal referencing. This is a powerful indicator of healthy external engagement and shows that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.545 is notably lower than the national average of -0.195, showcasing a commitment to quality that exceeds the country's already low-risk standard. This demonstrates a consistent and well-managed approach to selecting publication venues. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued can expose an institution to severe reputational risks and suggests a lack of due diligence. By maintaining such a low rate, the university proves it has effective information literacy practices in place, ensuring that its research is channeled through credible media that meet international ethical standards, thereby protecting its scientific output and resources from predatory or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.179, the institution maintains a prudent profile that is slightly more rigorous than the national standard of -0.109. Both scores are in a low-risk range, but the university's lower value indicates superior management of authorship practices. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can signal an inflation of author lists, which dilutes individual accountability. The institution's controlled rate suggests a healthy distinction between necessary massive collaboration and the inclusion of 'honorary' authors, reinforcing transparency and the integrity of authorship credit.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.537, a figure that indicates high exposure to this risk and is considerably higher than the national average of 0.400. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, the university is more prone to this alert than its peers. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous. A high value here implies that its strong impact metrics could be resulting from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own structural capacity. This warrants a strategic reflection on how to cultivate and showcase home-grown research excellence to ensure long-term autonomy and recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it far more favorably than the national average of -0.611. This demonstrates a clear alignment with best practices, showing an absence of the risk signals that can appear even in low-risk environments. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to issues like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's near-zero incidence of this phenomenon is a strong testament to a research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record and substantive contributions over inflated productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution effectively isolates itself from a national trend, where the country's average of 0.344 indicates a medium-level risk. This demonstrates a clear strategic choice to prioritize external validation over internal publication channels. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, as it may allow research to bypass rigorous, independent peer review. By avoiding this practice, the university ensures its scientific production is measured against global standards, enhancing its international visibility and reinforcing its commitment to competitive, merit-based validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.490 is exceptionally low, marking a clear departure from the national average of 0.026, which sits in the medium-risk category. This performance indicates that the university successfully prevents the risk dynamics observed across the country. A high rate of redundant output often points to 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's very low score suggests its researchers are focused on producing coherent, significant studies, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence and prioritizing the generation of new knowledge over the pursuit of volume.
