| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.141 | -1.210 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.202 | 2.109 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.516 | -0.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.788 | 3.512 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.685 | -0.008 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.867 | 1.929 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.538 | 7.012 |
The Agricultural University of Tirana demonstrates a solid overall performance in scientific integrity, effectively navigating a complex national landscape. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust controls against hyperprolific authorship, its minimal reliance on institutional journals, and its remarkable capacity to filter out the significant national risks associated with retracted publications. These areas of excellence are counterbalanced by moderate vulnerabilities, notably a dependency on external collaborations for impact, a tendency towards hyper-authored publications, and some exposure to discontinued journals and redundant output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic leadership is clearly concentrated in areas central to its purpose, including Veterinary (ranked #1 in Albania), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (#2), and Environmental Science (#2). This strong alignment with its mission to advance modern agriculture and guarantee food quality is commendable. However, the identified risks, particularly the gap in research leadership, could challenge the long-term sustainability of this mission by fostering dependency rather than building core institutional capacity. To fully embody its commitment to "careful management," the university is encouraged to leverage its proven strengths in integrity to proactively address these moderate-risk areas, thereby ensuring its scientific excellence is both impactful and structurally sound.
The institution's Z-score of -1.141 is very low, closely mirroring the national average of -1.210, which indicates an environment with minimal risk signals related to affiliation practices. The university's score, while still reflecting a very low risk, is marginally higher than the country's, suggesting the presence of some residual activity in an otherwise inert context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor signal warrants passive observation to ensure that collaborative practices continue to be transparent and do not evolve towards strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.
The institution demonstrates remarkable resilience with a low-risk Z-score of -0.202, in stark contrast to the significant risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 2.109). This suggests the university functions as an effective firewall, successfully insulating itself from systemic national vulnerabilities in pre-publication quality control. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the national average indicates that the institution's integrity culture and methodological rigor are robust, preventing the kind of recurring malpractice or systemic failures that appear to be a challenge elsewhere in the country.
With a Z-score of -0.516, the institution exhibits a more prudent profile in institutional self-citation compared to the national standard (-0.028). This demonstrates a rigorous approach to scholarly communication that avoids the potential pitfalls of endogamous impact inflation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines; however, the institution's lower rate suggests a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and validation from the global community, reinforcing that its academic influence is recognized externally rather than being oversized by internal 'echo chambers'.
The institution shows a medium-risk Z-score of 1.788 in this area, a signal that requires attention. However, this is placed in the context of a significant national trend (Z-score: 3.512), indicating that the university exercises relative containment and operates with more control than its environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score suggests an urgent need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to avoid reputational risks and the misallocation of resources to 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution's Z-score of 0.685 represents a moderate deviation from the national standard (-0.008), which shows almost no risk. This suggests the university is more sensitive to factors that can lead to hyper-authorship. This indicator serves as a signal to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices that can dilute individual accountability. The deviation from the national norm warrants a review to ensure that all authorship attributions are transparent and reflect substantial contributions.
With a Z-score of 2.867, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk indicator than the national average (1.929). This score points to a significant gap where the institution's overall impact is considerably higher than the impact of the research it leads, signaling a potential sustainability risk. This suggests that its scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, not structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether current excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is identical to the national average, demonstrating perfect integrity synchrony in this area. This total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security indicates the absence of hyperprolificacy risks. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's very low score confirms a healthy balance between quantity and quality, free from signals of coercive authorship or practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.268, which is identical to the national figure, the institution is in complete alignment with its environment regarding the use of institutional journals. This integrity synchrony signifies a very low risk of academic endogamy. A high Z-score in this area would warn that scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review. The university's low reliance on these channels enhances its global visibility and confirms that its research undergoes standard competitive validation.
The institution's medium-risk Z-score of 0.538 indicates the presence of some redundant output. However, when compared to the critical national Z-score of 7.012, it is clear the university demonstrates relative containment of this practice. Massive and recurring bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented to artificially inflate productivity. While the institution is not immune, it operates with significantly more order than the national context, suggesting that internal controls are partially mitigating a widespread issue, though further attention is warranted to ensure research prioritizes significant new knowledge over volume.
