| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.233 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.648 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.153 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.468 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.903 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.314 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.934 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.351 | -0.059 |
The University of Hradec Kralove presents a complex profile, with an overall risk score of 1.442 indicating a moderate level of vulnerability that requires strategic attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining intellectual leadership, as evidenced by its very low risk in impact dependency and output in institutional journals, alongside a prudent management of self-citation and redundant publications. These positive aspects are counterbalanced by critical alerts, most notably a significant rate of retracted output, and medium-level risks associated with multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authors, and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university excels nationally in key areas such as Engineering (ranked 2nd), and holds strong Top 5 positions in Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Chemistry, and Physics and Astronomy. However, the identified integrity risks, particularly in publication quality control, pose a direct threat to its mission of providing "high-quality" programmes and contributing to regional "competitiveness." Fulfilling this mission requires that its scientific excellence be underpinned by unimpeachable integrity. A strategic focus on reinforcing pre-publication review processes and authorship policies will be crucial to align its operational practices with its commendable institutional goals and scientific strengths.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 2.233, significantly higher than the national average of 0.229. Although both the university and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the university's value suggests a high exposure to this dynamic, making it more prone to these signals than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review to ensure it does not signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” which could misrepresent the university's collaborative footprint.
A critical alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 3.648 for retracted output, which dramatically exceeds the national medium-risk average of 0.034. This finding suggests that the university is amplifying vulnerabilities that may be present, but less pronounced, in the national system. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this significantly higher than the global average points to a potential systemic failure in quality control mechanisms prior to publication. This is not merely a collection of isolated incidents but a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The university demonstrates strong performance in managing institutional self-citation, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.153, contrasting favorably with the national medium-risk average of 0.386. This indicates a high degree of institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. By maintaining a low rate, the university avoids the concerning signals of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated by the broader scientific community and that its academic influence is a result of global recognition rather than inflated by internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of 0.468, the university shows a medium risk for publishing in discontinued journals, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.153. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to reputational risks and highlighting an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.903 for hyper-authored output, standing in positive contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.375. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a risk that is more common across the country. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or honorary authorship, diluting accountability. The university's low score in this area is a positive signal that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable authorship practices, thereby upholding transparency and individual accountability.
The university's Z-score of -1.314 for impact dependency is in the very low-risk category, a clear point of strength when compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.862. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of impact dependency observed in its national environment. A wide positive gap can signal that prestige is dependent on external partners. The university's negative score, however, indicates the opposite: its scientific prestige is structural and built upon strong internal capacity, with the impact of its research being driven by projects where it exercises intellectual leadership.
The university's Z-score of 1.934 for hyperprolific authors places it in the medium-risk category, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.401. This suggests the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
The university shows exceptional performance regarding its rate of output in institutional journals, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268, which is significantly better than the national medium-risk average of 1.180. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the institution avoids the risks of academic endogamy common in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and bypass independent peer review. By maintaining a very low rate, the university ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and reinforcing the credibility of its research.
With a Z-score of -0.351, the university maintains a low-risk profile for redundant output, performing better than the national average of -0.059, which is also in the low-risk band. This indicates a prudent profile, suggesting the institution manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies to inflate productivity. The university's favorable score demonstrates a commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, thereby contributing positively to the scientific record.
