| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.532 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.178 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.817 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.361 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.098 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.210 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.144 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
2.049 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.344 | -0.059 |
The University of South Bohemia presents a complex scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.454 reflecting a combination of exceptional strengths and specific, critical vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates outstanding control in areas such as the avoidance of discontinued journals and hyperprolific authorship, alongside prudent management of hyper-authorship and redundant publications. However, these strengths are counterbalanced by a significant-risk alert for retracted output and medium-risk flags for multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and publishing in its own journals—all of which exceed national averages. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas nationally include Energy (ranked 3rd), Veterinary (3rd), Arts and Humanities (4th), and Agricultural and Biological Sciences (5th). The identified risks, particularly the high rate of retractions, directly challenge the institutional mission "to serve the truth," suggesting that current quality assurance mechanisms may not fully align with this core value. To safeguard its reputation and fully embody its commitment to "the inviolable values of human dignity and freedom," the university is advised to leverage its proven governance strengths to conduct a thorough review of its pre-publication quality controls and address the cultural drivers behind its endogamous publication patterns.
The institution's Z-score of 0.532 is notably higher than the national average of 0.229, suggesting a greater tendency towards multiple affiliations. While both the institution and the country operate within a similar medium-risk landscape, the university shows a heightened exposure to this indicator. This pattern warrants a closer look, as disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” moving beyond the legitimate scope of researcher mobility or partnerships between universities and teaching hospitals.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is 1.178, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the much lower national average of 0.034. This significant disparity indicates that the university is amplifying a risk that, while present nationally, is far more acute within its walls. A high Z-score in this indicator suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This rate, being significantly higher than the average, alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
With a Z-score of 0.817, the university's rate of institutional self-citation is more than double the national average of 0.386. This indicates a high exposure to practices that can lead to scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than global community recognition.
The institution demonstrates exemplary performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.361 indicating a very low incidence of publications in discontinued journals, even lower than the already low national average of -0.153. This result shows a consistent and robust approach to selecting publication venues. The absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard, confirming that the institution's researchers are effectively exercising due diligence in selecting dissemination channels and avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.
The university shows a low rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: -0.098), which is a positive finding, especially when compared to the national Z-score of 0.375 that signals a medium risk. This suggests that the institution's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. The data indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its publications.
The institution's Z-score of 0.210 for this indicator is significantly lower than the national average of 0.862, indicating a much smaller gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This demonstrates a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common nationally. This healthier balance suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is less dependent on external partners and more reflective of its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, mitigating the risk of relying on exogenous prestige.
With an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.144, far below the national average of -0.401, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors. This demonstrates a strong institutional culture that prioritizes meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume. The data confirms a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, and underscoring a commitment to the integrity of the scientific record.
The university's Z-score of 2.049 for publishing in its own journals is considerably higher than the national average of 1.180, pointing to a high exposure to the risks of academic endogamy. While in-house journals are valuable for training and local dissemination, this level of dependence raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts simultaneously as judge and party. This high value warns that a significant portion of scientific production might be bypassing independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding redundant output, with a Z-score of -0.344 that is well below the national average of -0.059. This indicates that the university manages its research publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. The low incidence of massive bibliographic overlap suggests a strong institutional norm against data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
