New Bulgarian University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

New Bulgarian University presents a balanced and complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.052 that indicates general alignment with global standards. The institution demonstrates notable strengths and effective risk mitigation in several key areas, particularly in its very low rates of hyperprolific authorship and publication in its own journals, and its successful resistance to national trends of high institutional self-citation and use of discontinued journals. These positive signals suggest robust internal governance and a commitment to external validation. However, this is contrasted by medium-risk alerts in areas concerning authorship and publication strategy, including elevated rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and redundant output (salami slicing). A significant gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its own led research also points to a potential strategic dependency. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a strong national position, particularly in Arts and Humanities where it ranks 4th in Bulgaria. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks related to authorship transparency and publication integrity could challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To consolidate its strong national standing and enhance its global reputation, it is recommended that the university focuses on developing clearer policies and training around authorship criteria and publication ethics to address the highlighted vulnerabilities.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.535 in this indicator, which represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.068. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher-than-average rate at the institution warrants a closer look. It could signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that can obscure the true origin of research contributions and artificially boost institutional metrics. A review of affiliation patterns is advisable to ensure they reflect genuine, substantive collaborations.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, positioning itself more favorably than the national standard of -0.191. This lower-than-average rate suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are managed with rigor. Retractions can be complex events, but a consistently low rate indicates that processes for ensuring methodological soundness and ethical compliance prior to publication are likely effective, contributing to a culture of scientific integrity and reducing the incidence of systemic errors or malpractice that could lead to post-publication withdrawal.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution shows remarkable resilience against a systemic national risk, with a Z-score of -0.703, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 1.380. This indicates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a practice prevalent elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a very low rate, the institution avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This result strongly suggests that the university's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international scientific discourse.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

Displaying strong institutional resilience, the university's Z-score of -0.219 is significantly healthier than the national average of 0.691. This performance indicates that the institution's researchers are successfully navigating away from a risk that appears more common at the national level. By avoiding discontinued journals, the university demonstrates effective due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This protects its reputation from association with media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards and shows a commitment to channeling resources away from 'predatory' or low-quality practices, ensuring its scientific output remains in credible and enduring venues.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.770, compared to the national average of 0.149, indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting it is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, a high rate outside these contexts can be a red flag for author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal suggests a need to scrutinize authorship practices to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and the potential presence of 'honorary' or political authorships that do not reflect substantial intellectual contribution.

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

With a Z-score of 1.649, the institution shows high exposure to this risk, significantly exceeding the national average of 0.831. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is notably higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, stemming from collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning strategy that relies heavily on external partners, which could be vulnerable in the long term.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution maintains a very low-risk profile with a Z-score of -1.413, well below the already low national average of -0.770. This absence of risk signals is a strong positive indicator of a healthy research culture. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and often point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's very low score in this area suggests that practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation are not prevalent, and that its researchers' productivity levels are well within credible and sustainable bounds, prioritizing scientific integrity over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from national risk dynamics, with a Z-score of -0.268 in a country context where the average is a medium-risk 1.113. This result indicates the institution does not replicate a concerning trend observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This commitment to publishing in external, independent venues ensures its research undergoes standard competitive peer review, enhances its global visibility, and reinforces a culture where scientific validation is sought from the international community.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 2.018, the institution shows a high exposure to this risk, far exceeding the national average of 0.832. This value serves as a significant alert regarding the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, often called 'salami slicing.' Such massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system. This indicator suggests an urgent need to review publication strategies and promote a culture that prioritizes the communication of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication counts.