| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.402 | -0.821 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | -0.095 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.161 | 0.288 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.231 | -0.284 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.134 | 0.472 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.459 | 0.807 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.924 | -0.608 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
1.157 | 1.531 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.654 | -0.247 |
Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.177, indicating a performance that is slightly better than the global baseline. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of hyperprolific authorship and redundant publications, suggesting a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate dependence on institutional journals and a notable gap between the impact of its total output and that led by its own researchers, which, while below the national average, signal potential vulnerabilities. This solid integrity foundation supports the University's prominent national standing in key research areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top positions in Croatia for Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (1st), as well as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Veterinary (all ranked 2nd). This performance largely aligns with the University's mission to develop science through "moral and ethical principles." However, the identified risks, particularly regarding academic endogamy and dependency on external leadership for impact, could challenge the long-term goal of fostering independent critical thinking and fully contributing to the "European knowledge community." Overall, the University is in a strong position. A proactive strategy focused on diversifying publication channels and strengthening internal research leadership will not only mitigate existing risks but also enhance its already significant contributions to regional and national development.
The University's Z-score of -0.402 is higher than the national average of -0.821. This suggests a slight but noticeable trend towards multiple affiliations compared to its national peers, creating an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. 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 or “affiliation shopping.” Monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure all affiliations reflect substantive collaborative work and maintain transparency.
With a Z-score of -0.343, the University demonstrates a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.095. This prudent profile suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and some signify responsible supervision in correcting honest errors. However, a rate significantly lower than the national average points to a robust pre-publication review process, reinforcing the integrity of the institution's scientific record and its commitment to methodological rigor.
The University exhibits a Z-score of -0.161, a low-risk value that stands in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.288. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risk of excessive self-citation prevalent in the country. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, the University effectively avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from disproportionately high rates, ensuring its work is validated by the broader scientific community rather than through endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.231 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.284, indicating a minor but present signal of vulnerability in this area. This suggests a need for increased vigilance in selecting publication venues. Publishing in journals that are later discontinued can expose the institution to severe reputational risks and may indicate that due diligence is not consistently applied. Strengthening information literacy among researchers is key to avoiding the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.
The University's Z-score for hyper-authored output is 0.134, a medium-risk value that is nevertheless significantly lower than the national average of 0.472. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more common nationally. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high rate elsewhere can signal author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The University's relative control in this area suggests a healthier balance, helping to preserve transparency and distinguish necessary collaboration from 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.459, the University shows a moderate gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, a figure that is notably better than the national average of 0.807. This reflects differentiated management of a common national challenge. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally ingrained. The University's ability to moderate this risk indicates a stronger internal capacity for intellectual leadership than its peers, though continued focus on fostering homegrown, high-impact research is essential for long-term scientific autonomy.
The University's Z-score of -0.924 places it in the very low-risk category, well below the low-risk national average of -0.608. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The University's very low score in this area is a strong positive indicator of a research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
The University's Z-score of 1.157 indicates a medium-level reliance on its own journals, a risk that is nonetheless managed more effectively than at the national level, where the average is 1.531. This suggests a differentiated management strategy that moderates a common national practice. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by potentially bypassing independent external peer review. The University's relative containment of this practice is positive, but further diversification of publication channels is recommended to enhance global visibility and ensure all research undergoes standard competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.654, the University shows a very low rate of redundant output, a figure significantly better than the national average of -0.247. This low-profile consistency highlights an institutional strength, as the absence of risk signals surpasses the national standard. High bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. The University's excellent performance here suggests a strong commitment to publishing complete, significant studies, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
