University of Rijeka

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Rijeka demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of 0.004. This score indicates a strong alignment with best practices and a proactive stance against systemic vulnerabilities. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of hyperprolific authorship and redundant publications, suggesting a culture that prioritizes substantive scientific contributions over sheer volume. Furthermore, the University effectively manages risks related to institutional self-citation and the dependency on external collaborations for impact, performing significantly better than the national average in these areas. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these sound practices underpin the University's leadership in key thematic areas, including its top national ranking in Chemistry and strong second-place positions in Dentistry, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences. This commitment to quality directly supports the institutional mission to ensure the "international relevance" of its work. However, the significantly high rate of publication in its own institutional journals presents a strategic challenge, potentially creating academic endogamy that could undermine this same goal of global recognition. To further solidify its position as a leader in quality and sustainable development, the University is advised to review its internal publication policies to ensure they consistently promote rigorous, independent, and internationally visible peer review.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Rijeka presents a Z-score of -0.576, a low value that is slightly higher than the national average of -0.821. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, where the institution shows minor signals of risk activity that warrant observation. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate that begins to diverge from the national baseline should be monitored. Continued attention is recommended to ensure this trend does not evolve into a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the transparency of collaborative contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.095. This indicates that the University's quality control and supervision mechanisms are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate suggests that potential issues are effectively addressed prior to publication. This performance is a positive sign of a healthy integrity culture, where systemic failures in methodological rigor or recurring malpractice are successfully prevented, reinforcing the institution's commitment to producing reliable scientific work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University shows exemplary differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.003, significantly moderating a risk that is more common across the country (Z-score: 0.288). While some self-citation is natural, the institution's ability to keep this rate near zero indicates it successfully avoids the "echo chambers" and scientific isolation that can arise from endogamous practices. This demonstrates 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 external scientific discourse.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.228 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.284, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk is low, this score suggests the University shows minor signals that warrant review before they escalate. A presence in discontinued journals, even if sporadic, can constitute an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This serves as a reminder of the need for continuous information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling scientific production through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby preventing potential reputational risks.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.233, the University of Rijeka demonstrates differentiated management by maintaining a lower rate of hyper-authorship compared to the national average of 0.472. This suggests the institution is more effectively moderating a risk that is common in its environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science," the University's controlled rate indicates a healthier institutional norm that helps distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic "honorary" or political authorship practices, thus promoting greater individual accountability and transparency.

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

The institution exhibits strong differentiated management with a Z-score of 0.180, which is substantially lower than the national average of 0.807. This indicates a much smaller gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership. This is a key sign of sustainability, suggesting that the University's scientific prestige is structural and results from genuine internal capacity. Unlike the national trend, which points to a greater dependency on external partners, the University of Rijeka demonstrates that its excellence metrics are rooted in its own ability to lead and innovate.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University of Rijeka's Z-score of -0.960 signifies a complete absence of risk signals for hyperprolific authorship, a low-profile consistency that aligns perfectly with the low-risk national environment (Z-score: -0.608). Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score in this area is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, and upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 3.086, the University shows high exposure to this risk, a rate significantly more pronounced than the national average of 1.531. This indicates the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, this high dependency raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This practice warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and creating "fast tracks" to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.635 reflects a state of low-profile consistency, with a near-total absence of risk signals that is well-aligned with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.247). This result strongly suggests that the University's research culture discourages the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By avoiding data fragmentation or "salami slicing," the institution demonstrates a commitment to publishing significant new knowledge, thereby contributing to a more robust and reliable scientific evidence base.