| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.641 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.437 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.442 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.155 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.705 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.540 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
3.486 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.409 | -0.059 |
Jan Evangelista Purkyne University presents a scientific integrity profile marked by a commendable overall score (0.144) that reflects significant strengths in quality control, yet also reveals specific vulnerabilities requiring strategic attention. The institution's primary assets are its exceptionally low rates of retracted output and hyperprolific authors, indicating robust pre-publication review and a culture that prioritizes substantive contributions over sheer volume. However, this positive foundation is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in institutional self-citation, multiple affiliations, and particularly, a high rate of output in its own journals, which surpasses the national average. These patterns suggest a tendency towards academic insularity that could undermine the university's mission to cultivate "independent scientific research" and "free thinking." While the university demonstrates strong national positioning in key thematic areas such as Psychology, Arts and Humanities, and Medicine, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the identified risks of endogamy could limit the global resonance of this excellence. To fully realize its mission, the university is advised to leverage its proven strengths in research governance to develop clearer policies on publication and collaboration strategies, ensuring its operational practices fully align with its commitment to an open, creative, and globally integrated academic environment.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.641, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.229. This indicates that the university is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers, even though both operate within a medium-risk context. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaborative research, the university's higher rate suggests a potential over-reliance on this strategy. This elevated signal warrants a review to ensure that affiliations are driven by genuine scientific partnership rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the university's unique brand and research identity.
With a Z-score of -0.437, the institution demonstrates an exemplary record, positioning itself in a state of preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.034). This very low score is a strong positive signal, suggesting that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective and prevent the systemic failures that may be occurring elsewhere in the country. Retractions can stem from honest errors, but a rate this far below the average points to a robust culture of integrity and methodological rigor, indicating that potential issues are identified and corrected before they compromise the public scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.442, placing it above the national average of 0.386. Although both the university and the country fall within a medium-risk band, the institution shows a higher exposure to this particular risk. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this elevated rate warns of a greater tendency toward scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' dynamic compared to its peers. This pattern suggests a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately validated by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community, potentially limiting the reach and external validation of its research lines.
The institution's Z-score of -0.155 is almost identical to the national average of -0.153, indicating a state of statistical normality. This alignment shows that the low-risk level observed is as expected for its context and size, suggesting a standard and appropriate level of diligence in selecting publication venues. There is no evidence that the institution is disproportionately channeling its research into media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, which is a positive sign of responsible dissemination practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.705, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.375. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation present in the country. This strong performance suggests that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship. The low score is an indicator of a healthy research culture where author lists are more likely to reflect genuine contributions, reinforcing individual accountability and transparency.
With a Z-score of 0.540, the institution demonstrates more effective management of its scientific leadership impact compared to the national average of 0.862. While both are in a medium-risk category, the university's narrower gap suggests it moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. This indicates a healthier balance between its overall impact, often gained through collaboration, and the impact of research where it exercises direct intellectual leadership. This differentiated performance suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is less dependent on external partners and more reflective of its own structural capacity, mitigating the risk of relying on collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, signaling a near-total absence of risk in this area and aligning with the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.401). This result reflects a low-profile consistency, where the university's practices are even more rigorous than the already sound national benchmark. This very low indicator is a strong sign of a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. It points to a research environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of 3.486 is significantly elevated compared to the national average of 1.180, indicating high exposure to this risk. While publishing in in-house journals is a common practice nationally, the university's rate is substantially higher, creating a pronounced risk of academic endogamy and conflicts of interest. This heavy reliance on internal channels suggests that a significant portion of its scientific production may be bypassing independent external peer review. This practice not only limits global visibility but also raises concerns that institutional journals might be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without the standard competitive validation required by the international scientific community.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national norm with a Z-score of 0.409, which falls into the medium-risk category, while the country average remains low at -0.059. This suggests the university is more sensitive to risk factors associated with data fragmentation than its peers. A higher rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can be an alert for 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This trend warrants review, as it can distort the scientific evidence base and prioritize publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
