| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
4.091 | 1.550 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.381 | -0.138 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.650 | -0.328 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.412 | -0.472 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.207 | 0.597 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.755 | 0.020 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.818 | -0.350 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.053 | -0.362 |
Dalarna University demonstrates a robust foundation in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 0.251, characterized by exceptional performance in maintaining low rates of retractions, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals. These strengths signal a culture of rigorous quality control and a commitment to external validation. However, this solid base is contrasted by three key vulnerabilities: a significant alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, and medium-level risks in the Gap between overall and led-research impact, and the Rate of Redundant Output. The institution's thematic strengths, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are most prominent in Energy, Environmental Science, and Medicine. The identified risks, particularly those related to affiliation strategies and impact dependency, pose a direct challenge to the University's mission to "increase the academic quality of its research and education, and its attractiveness and competitiveness." An over-reliance on external partners for impact and potential productivity inflation could undermine the development of genuine, sustainable academic excellence. By leveraging its clear strengths in research integrity to strategically address these specific vulnerabilities, Dalarna University can better align its operational practices with its strategic vision, ensuring its competitiveness is built on a foundation of authentic and independent scholarly achievement.
The institution presents a Z-score of 4.091, a value that indicates a significant risk and markedly exceeds the national average of 1.550. This finding suggests that the University not only reflects but significantly amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, such a disproportionately high rate serves as a critical alert for potential "affiliation shopping" or strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This practice could artificially boost the University's perceived output and collaborative footprint, creating a reputational risk that requires an urgent review of institutional affiliation policies to ensure they reflect substantive contributions rather than mere credit acquisition.
With a Z-score of -0.381, the institution demonstrates a very low incidence of retracted publications, a figure that is consistent with and even slightly better than the low-risk national average of -0.138. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the national standard, indicating that the University's quality control mechanisms are robust and effective. A low retraction rate is a strong positive indicator, suggesting that pre-publication processes for ensuring methodological rigor and ethical compliance are functioning as intended, thereby safeguarding the institution's scientific record and reputation.
The University's Z-score of -1.650 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the already low national average of -0.328. This demonstrates a strong adherence to national norms of scientific openness and external validation. The data indicates that the institution successfully avoids the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-referencing. This commitment to seeking scrutiny from the broader global community, rather than relying on internal validation, is a hallmark of a healthy and outwardly-focused research environment, ensuring its academic influence is earned through widespread recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -0.412 is minimal, though slightly higher than the national average of -0.472. In an environment where publishing in discontinued journals is almost non-existent, this score represents a form of residual noise. While the risk is very low and does not signal a systemic problem, it does indicate that the University is marginally more likely than its national peers to show these trace signals. This suggests a need for continued vigilance in ensuring researchers have the most current information to select high-quality, reputable dissemination channels, thus avoiding any potential reputational risk associated with low-quality or 'predatory' practices.
Dalarna University shows a Z-score of -0.207, which is firmly in the low-risk category and contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.597. This demonstrates notable institutional resilience, as the University's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed at the national level. The data suggests that the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorships, thereby upholding standards of individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution's Z-score of 2.755 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.020, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This high exposure indicates that the University is far more prone than its national peers to publishing high-impact work where it does not hold intellectual leadership. This wide gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be heavily dependent and exogenous, rather than a result of its own structural capacity. It prompts a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal innovation or from a supportive role in collaborations led by external partners.
With a Z-score of -0.818, the institution displays a prudent profile that is notably more rigorous than the national standard (-0.350). This lower-than-average incidence of hyperprolific authors suggests that the University fosters an environment where the balance between quantity and quality is well-managed. The data indicates a reduced risk of practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful intellectual contribution, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of publication metrics.
The University's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.262, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment with a context of maximum scientific security indicates a shared national commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest by having the institution act as both judge and party, the University ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice is fundamental for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 2.053, a medium-risk value that represents a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.362. This discrepancy suggests the University is more sensitive to risk factors that encourage data fragmentation than its peers. A higher rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' can indicate a practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific record, signaling a need to review institutional incentives to ensure they prioritize significant new knowledge over publication volume.
