| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.462 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.475 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.101 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.444 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.459 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.402 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
12.039 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | -0.059 |
The University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno demonstrates a robust overall performance in scientific integrity, with a global score of 0.780 reflecting significant strengths in core research practices. The institution exhibits exceptional control over risks associated with retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications, indicating a strong culture of quality and methodological rigor. This solid foundation is further evidenced by the university's outstanding international standing in key thematic areas, as highlighted by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, particularly in Veterinary (ranked 1st in the Czech Republic and 5th in Eastern Europe) and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. However, this profile of excellence is critically challenged by a significant risk in the rate of output in institutional journals, which far exceeds national trends and suggests a potential for academic endogamy. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, such a high reliance on internal publication channels could undermine universal academic values of external validation and global impact. To secure its reputational leadership and ensure its scientific contributions achieve maximum global recognition, it is recommended that the university urgently review its publication policies to align them with its evident thematic strengths and commitment to research quality.
The institution's Z-score of 0.462 is higher than the national average of 0.229, placing it in a position of high exposure within a national context already showing medium risk. This suggests the university is more prone than its national peers to practices that can inflate institutional credit. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this heightened rate warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not merely strategic attempts at “affiliation shopping,” which could dilute the institution's unique contribution to collaborative work.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.475, indicating a very low risk, in stark contrast to the medium risk level observed nationally (0.034). This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics present in its wider environment. This excellent result suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to retractions. The absence of this risk signal is a strong indicator of a mature and responsible integrity culture where honest correction is valued and recurring malpractice is avoided.
With a Z-score of 0.101, the institution's rate of self-citation is considerably lower than the national average of 0.386, though both fall within the medium risk category. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, but by maintaining a lower rate, the institution reduces the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and demonstrates a greater reliance on external scrutiny, strengthening the credibility of its academic influence beyond internal validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.444 (very low risk) is well below the national Z-score of -0.153 (low risk). This low-profile consistency shows an absence of risk signals that aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. It indicates that the university's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals. This practice protects the institution's reputation and ensures research resources are invested in credible, internationally recognized outlets.
The university's Z-score of -0.459 (low risk) contrasts favorably with the country's medium-risk Z-score of 0.375. This points to strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation prevalent in the national context. This suggests the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution presents a low-risk Z-score of -0.402, which is significantly better than the medium-risk national average of 0.862. This gap highlights the university's institutional resilience, suggesting that its scientific prestige is built on strong internal capacity rather than being dependent on external partners for impact. Unlike the national trend, the institution demonstrates that its intellectual leadership is structural and endogenous, mitigating the sustainability risks associated with relying on collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution operates at a very low risk level, far below the country's low-risk score of -0.401. This low-profile consistency demonstrates an exemplary absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authors. This result suggests a healthy balance between productivity and quality, steering clear of dynamics like coercive authorship or superficial contributions that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of 12.039 represents a significant risk, critically accentuating a vulnerability that is only moderately present in the national system (Z-score 1.180). This is a major red flag. An excessive dependence on in-house journals raises serious conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice risks creating academic endogamy, where research may bypass rigorous, independent external peer review. This not only limits global visibility but also suggests the potential use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation, a practice that urgently requires a strategic review to safeguard the institution's credibility.
The university's Z-score of -1.186 (very low risk) is substantially better than the national Z-score of -0.059 (low risk). This demonstrates a strong commitment to publishing complete and significant research. The absence of this risk signal indicates that the institution's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This focus on substance over volume strengthens the scientific record and reflects a culture that values impactful knowledge over metric-driven outputs.
