| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.291 | -0.068 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.897 | -0.191 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.207 | 1.380 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.810 | 0.691 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.159 | 0.149 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.555 | 0.831 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.770 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.113 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.187 | 0.832 |
The Agricultural University of Plovdiv demonstrates a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by areas of exceptional governance alongside specific, high-priority vulnerabilities. With an overall integrity score of 0.263, the institution shows a general alignment with good practices, particularly in managing authorship standards, where it exhibits very low risk in hyper-authorship, hyperprolificity, and use of institutional journals. However, this positive performance is offset by a significant-risk rating in retracted output and medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university is a key national institution in Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Environmental Science. This strong thematic positioning is directly challenged by integrity risks that could undermine its mission to conduct "cutting-edge research" and enhance "competitiveness." A high rate of retractions and reliance on questionable journals contradict the pursuit of excellence and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputation and fully realize its mission, the university should leverage its demonstrated strengths in authorship governance to implement a robust strategy focused on enhancing pre-publication quality controls and promoting greater due diligence in the selection of publication venues.
The institution's Z-score of 0.291 for multiple affiliations indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.068. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers in Bulgaria. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This divergence warrants a review of collaboration and affiliation patterns to ensure they consistently reflect genuine scientific partnerships rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the transparency and accuracy of institutional achievements.
A Z-score of 0.897 for retracted output marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.191, highlighting an atypical level of risk that requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor. This critical finding necessitates immediate qualitative verification by management to diagnose the root causes and protect the university's scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of 0.207, the university demonstrates more effective management of institutional self-citation compared to the national average of 1.380. This reflects a differentiated approach that successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's lower rate indicates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This practice strengthens the external recognition of its work, ensuring its academic influence is built on broad community engagement rather than endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.810 for publications in discontinued journals is higher than the national average of 0.691, signaling a high exposure to this risk. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on "predatory" or low-quality publications.
The university exhibits a very low Z-score of -1.159 for hyper-authored output, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national context (Z-score 0.149). This result demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. This strong performance indicates that authorship practices are well-aligned with disciplinary norms, maintaining a clear distinction between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential "honorary" authorship, thereby reinforcing transparency and individual accountability in its research.
The institution's Z-score of 0.555 for the impact gap is notably lower than the national average of 0.831, reflecting a differentiated management approach that moderates a common risk in the country. A very wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. The university's smaller gap suggests a healthier balance, indicating that its excellence metrics result more from real internal capacity and intellectual leadership rather than solely from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-total absence of hyperprolific authorship, a figure that is even lower than the already low-risk national average of -0.770. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. The data suggests that the university's environment does not encourage practices that prioritize extreme publication volumes over meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation and upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The university's Z-score of -0.268 indicates a very low rate of publication in its own journals, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 1.113. This finding suggests a successful preventive isolation from national trends toward academic endogamy. By prioritizing external, independent peer review, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This strategy ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, which in turn significantly enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research.
The institution's low Z-score of -0.187 for redundant output, when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.832, demonstrates significant institutional resilience. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in the wider national environment. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The university's low score indicates a culture that prioritizes significant new knowledge, strengthening the scientific record and avoiding an overburdening of the review system.
