University of Dubrovnik

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Dubrovnik demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.224, which indicates a performance well within the parameters of international good practice. The institution's primary strengths lie in its rigorous selection of publication venues and its commitment to external validation, showing exceptionally low risk in output published in discontinued journals, institutional journals, and redundant publications. These positive indicators are complemented by effective mitigation of systemic national risks related to hyper-authorship. Areas for strategic attention include a moderate deviation from the national norm in the rate of multiple affiliations and a high exposure to impact dependency, where institutional prestige relies more on collaborative work than on internally-led research. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the University's key thematic strengths are concentrated in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, and Social Sciences. These results present a potential tension with the University's mission to foster "excellence" and "social responsibility," as the identified risks, though moderate, could challenge the perception of self-sustained leadership and transparent credit attribution. To fully align its operational reality with its strategic vision, the University is encouraged to review its policies on author affiliation and develop strategies to bolster the impact of its own intellectual leadership, thereby ensuring its reputation for excellence is both authentic and sustainable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Dubrovnik shows a Z-score of 0.047, which represents a moderate deviation from the national standard observed in Croatia (Z-score: -0.821). This suggests the institution exhibits a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this indicator signals a need for review. A disproportionately high rate can be a symptom of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," where researchers leverage multiple institutional names to maximize visibility or funding opportunities. This divergence from the national trend warrants an internal examination of affiliation policies to ensure they promote genuine collaboration rather than metric inflation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution displays a prudent profile, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score: -0.095). This lower-than-average rate of retractions, within an already low-risk national context, is a positive signal. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly below the norm suggests that the University's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This performance indicates a strong institutional integrity culture and robust methodological rigor, which helps prevent the systemic failures that can lead to recurring malpractice and subsequent retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.087, while the national average is 0.288. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the University successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common across the country. Although a certain level of self-citation is natural, the University's lower rate suggests it is less prone to the formation of scientific 'echo chambers' than its national peers. By maintaining a healthier balance, the institution mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University of Dubrovnik demonstrates low-profile consistency with a Z-score of -0.342, a value that indicates a complete absence of risk signals and aligns with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.284). This excellent result constitutes a critical strength, signaling robust due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels for its research. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects itself from severe reputational risks and demonstrates a high level of information literacy, ensuring its resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.454, the University exhibits institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.472). While extensive author lists can be legitimate in 'Big Science' collaborations, the country's moderate risk level suggests a broader trend of potential author list inflation. The University's low-risk score indicates it acts as a filter against this practice, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding standards of individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.874 indicates high exposure to this risk, a rate slightly more pronounced than the national average (Z-score: 0.807). This value suggests that the University is more prone than its peers to a dependency on external partners for achieving high-impact research. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that the University's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University's Z-score of -0.416, compared to the national score of -0.608, points to an incipient vulnerability. Although both the institution and the country operate within a low-risk range, the University shows signals that are slightly more active than the national baseline, warranting review before they escalate. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight uptick suggests a potential for emerging imbalances between quantity and quality, and it serves as a pre-alert to monitor for risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, which prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the University demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, as it does not replicate the risk dynamics widely observed in its national environment (Z-score: 1.531). The country's moderate risk level points to a systemic reliance on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest. In contrast, the University’s near-total absence of this practice is a significant strength. It ensures that its scientific production bypasses potential academic endogamy and is validated through independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and avoiding the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -1.186 signifies an exceptionally low risk, a position of low-profile consistency that aligns with and improves upon the national standard (Z-score: -0.247). This result indicates a strong institutional culture focused on substance over volume. A near-zero rate of massive bibliographic overlap between publications confirms that the University actively discourages the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge strengthens the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer-review system.