| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.859 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.333 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.065 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.313 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.062 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.351 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.501 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.528 | -0.059 |
Mendel University in Brno presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall risk score of 0.031. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for practices such as redundant output, publication in institutional journals, and institutional self-citation, often performing better than the national average for the Czech Republic. These areas of excellence suggest strong internal governance and a culture that prioritizes quality and external validation. However, areas requiring strategic attention include the rates of multiple affiliations and retracted output, which are higher than the national average and indicate a greater exposure to associated risks. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Chemistry, Arts and Humanities, Psychology, and Veterinary sciences, where it ranks 6th nationally. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these findings highlight a potential tension: the identified risk areas could challenge a commitment to research excellence and integrity, which are foundational values for any leading HEI. To secure its strong position, the university is advised to leverage its clear governance strengths to develop targeted policies that address the identified vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its operational practices fully align with its academic ambitions and social responsibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.859 is notably higher than the national average of 0.229. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context, this comparison reveals that the institution is more prone to showing alert signals than its peers. This high exposure suggests a need to carefully review affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping”. The university should ensure its policies promote transparency and accurate attribution to maintain the integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of 0.333, the institution shows a significantly higher rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.034. This disparity indicates that the university has a higher exposure to this risk factor, even though both fall within a medium-risk classification. A rate significantly higher than the national average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more systemically than at peer institutions, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.
The institution demonstrates notable resilience, with a Z-score of -0.065 in a national context where the average is 0.386. This contrast shows that while the country faces a medium risk of endogamous practices, the university's internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate these systemic tendencies. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution successfully avoids disproportionately high rates that can signal scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. This prudent management ensures its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The university exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.313, which is more favorable than the national average of -0.153. This indicates that within a low-risk environment, the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. This proactive stance minimizes the reputational damage associated with publishing in channels that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. It reflects strong due diligence and information literacy among its researchers, preventing the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
With a Z-score of -0.062, the institution shows effective filtering of risks that are more prevalent at the national level (Z-score: 0.375). This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university maintains a low-risk profile while the country operates at a medium-risk level. This performance suggests a culture that successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. By curbing author list inflation, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.
The institution shows differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.351 that is considerably lower than the national average of 0.862. This indicates that the university effectively moderates the risk of impact dependency, a common challenge in the country. A very wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. The university's more controlled gap suggests it is building greater internal capacity for intellectual leadership, reducing the sustainability risk of relying too heavily on external partners for its high-impact research.
The university maintains a prudent profile regarding author productivity, with a Z-score of -0.501 that is lower than the national average of -0.401. This superior performance within a low-risk context suggests that the institution manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. This focus helps avoid the potential imbalances between quantity and quality that can arise from extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 contrasts sharply with the national average of 1.180, indicating a clear case of preventive isolation. The university does not replicate the medium-risk dynamics observed across the country, where reliance on in-house journals is more common. This approach avoids the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. By prioritizing independent external peer review, the university ensures its scientific production achieves greater global visibility and is validated through standard competitive channels.
With a Z-score of -0.528, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of risk signals for redundant output, performing better than the already low-risk national average (-0.059). This low-profile consistency aligns with a high-integrity environment. The data suggests the university's culture strongly discourages the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing significant new knowledge prevents data fragmentation and upholds the value of its scientific contributions.
