Pedagogical University of Kielce

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Pedagogical University of Kielce presents a robust and healthy scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.349. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over key risk areas, with five of the nine indicators registering at the "very low" risk level, most notably in the rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications. These results highlight a strong foundation of responsible research practices. Areas for strategic attention are concentrated in a moderate tendency towards Institutional Self-Citation and Hyper-Authored Output, which are slightly more pronounced than national trends. This solid integrity framework underpins the University's recognized academic strengths, particularly in its nationally ranked programs in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Business, Management and Accounting, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. The University's mission, centered on "seeking the truth," is well-supported by its low rates of malpractice indicators; however, the identified risks in self-citation and authorship could, if unmonitored, create internal 'echo chambers' or dilute accountability, subtly conflicting with the ideal of open and externally validated research. A proactive review of citation and authorship policies would further solidify the University's alignment with its foundational principles, ensuring its research excellence is both robust and transparent.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.458 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.755. Although both values fall within a low-risk range, this slight elevation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick could signal the beginning of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. A proactive review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they remain aligned with best practices and do not inadvertently encourage "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.484, the University shows a near-total absence of retracted publications, a figure significantly better than the already low national average of -0.058. This demonstrates a consistent and effective quality control framework. The absence of these critical risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard for research integrity, indicating that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust and successfully prevent systemic errors or malpractice from compromising the scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 1.028, notably higher than the national average of 0.660. This indicates a greater exposure to this particular risk compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines; nonetheless, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This trend warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition, and merits a strategic review.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.403 reflects a very low rate of publication in discontinued journals, outperforming the national average of -0.195. This excellent result shows a consistent alignment with high standards of publication ethics. The near absence of this risk signal indicates that researchers are exercising strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards and thus safeguarding the institution's reputation and resources from 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.450, the University shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.109, indicating a greater sensitivity to the risk of hyper-authorship. When this pattern appears outside 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are legitimate, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This deviation from the national norm suggests a need to examine authorship practices to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could undermine research integrity.

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

The University's Z-score of 0.259 for this indicator is lower than the national average of 0.400, suggesting a differentiated and more effective management of its research impact. This indicates that the institution is successfully moderating a risk that appears more common nationally. A smaller gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is less dependent on external leadership and more reflective of its own structural capacity. This points towards a sustainable model where excellence metrics result from real internal capabilities rather than just strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of hyperprolific authorship, with a Z-score of -0.974 that is well below the national average of -0.611. This result is a strong indicator of a healthy research culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity. The absence of this risk signal aligns with national standards and suggests that the institution is effectively avoiding potential imbalances such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the University shows a very low reliance on its own journals, in stark contrast to the moderate risk level seen at the national level (Z-score 0.344). This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves greater global visibility rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The University's Z-score of -0.791 indicates a near-complete absence of redundant publications, setting it apart from the national context where this is a moderate risk (Z-score 0.026). This preventive isolation shows that the institution does not replicate risk dynamics present in its environment. The data strongly suggests that researchers are focused on producing significant, coherent studies rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity—thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific evidence base.