| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.503 | -0.068 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.014 | -0.191 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.535 | 1.380 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.440 | 0.691 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.575 | 0.149 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.396 | 0.831 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.770 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.113 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.370 | 0.832 |
The University of National and World Economy presents a robust and generally well-managed integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.042. This indicates a performance that is well-aligned with global standards, characterized by significant areas of institutional resilience that effectively counteract specific, targeted vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates exceptional strength by resisting national trends toward academic endogamy, showing very low rates of output in its own journals and institutional self-citation. This is complemented by a prudent management of authorship and a strong capacity for generating impact based on internal leadership. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two areas of medium risk that require strategic attention: a higher-than-average rate of publication in discontinued journals and a notable tendency toward redundant output (salami slicing). These challenges directly conflict with the University's mission to be an "undisputed, respected and valuable territory" of research, as they can undermine the perceived quality and value of its scientific contributions. The institution's leadership, particularly in its top-ranked SCImago Institutions Rankings fields of Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; and Social Sciences, provides a strong platform to address these issues. By focusing on enhancing information literacy for journal selection and promoting a culture that values substantive contributions over sheer volume, the University can fully align its operational practices with its mission of excellence and solidify its position as a leader in the European educational area.
With an institutional Z-score of -1.503, significantly lower than the national average of -0.068, the University demonstrates an exemplary and conservative approach to author affiliations. This result indicates a clear operational standard where risk signals associated with affiliation practices are virtually non-existent, positioning the institution as a benchmark of good practice within a country that already maintains a low-risk profile. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University's very low score confirms that its collaborative framework is transparent and not susceptible to such "affiliation shopping," reinforcing its institutional integrity.
The University's Z-score for retracted output is -0.014, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.191. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate is not inherently negative, as it can signify responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, the slight elevation compared to the national baseline indicates that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms, while generally effective, could be reviewed to prevent any potential for systemic failures. This proactive approach is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the institution's research record.
The institution exhibits remarkable resilience in this area, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.535, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk average of 1.380. This performance suggests that the University has effective control mechanisms that mitigate the systemic risks of academic insularity prevalent in its environment. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the country's higher score points to a broader tendency toward 'echo chambers'. The University successfully avoids this pitfall, demonstrating that its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, thereby ensuring its work undergoes sufficient external scrutiny.
A significant area of concern is the rate of publication in discontinued journals, where the University's Z-score of 1.440 is notably higher than the national average of 0.691. This indicates a high exposure to reputational risk, suggesting that the institution is more prone than its national peers to channeling research into outlets that fail to meet international quality standards. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to strengthen information literacy among its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The University demonstrates strong institutional resilience with a low Z-score of -0.575, contrasting sharply with the national medium-risk average of 0.149. This indicates that the institution effectively filters out the national tendency toward authorship list inflation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', their appearance in other fields can dilute individual accountability. The University's low score suggests a culture that values transparency and meaningful contribution over 'honorary' or political authorship, ensuring that credit is assigned appropriately and responsibly.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.396, the University shows strong resilience against the national trend, where the country's medium-risk score of 0.831 suggests a wider dependency on external partners for impact. This result indicates that the University's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon genuine internal capacity. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's excellence metrics result from a strategic position in collaborations rather than from its own intellectual leadership. The University's low score confirms that it exercises significant leadership in its research, ensuring its high impact is a direct reflection of its own scholarly contributions.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, well below the country's already low-risk average of -0.770. This demonstrates a healthy and consistent research culture, free from the pressures that can lead to hyper-prolificacy. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal imbalances between quantity and quality. The University's exceptionally low score indicates that its environment fosters substantive research over metric-driven productivity, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The University shows a profound disconnection from the national risk dynamic in this indicator, with a very low Z-score of -0.268 compared to the country's medium-risk average of 1.113. This demonstrates a clear and deliberate strategy of preventive isolation from practices of academic endogamy. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and may allow production to bypass independent peer review. The University's minimal reliance on such channels confirms its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, ensuring its research is assessed by rigorous, external standards.
The University's Z-score of 1.370 for redundant output places it in the medium-risk category and reveals a high exposure to this practice, exceeding the national average of 0.832. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to the fragmentation of data to artificially inflate productivity. This practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units, distorts the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. This finding calls for a review of institutional incentives to ensure that the focus is on producing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing the volume of publications.
