VSB-Technical University of Ostrava

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

VSB-Technical University of Ostrava presents a dual profile in scientific integrity, with an overall score of 0.348 reflecting both areas of exceptional governance and specific vulnerabilities requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates remarkable strength and resilience in mitigating systemic risks prevalent at the national level, particularly in its low rates of hyper-authorship, its balanced impact generation, and its minimal reliance on institutional journals and redundant publications. These strengths are foundational to its academic reputation, which is further evidenced by its strong national standing in key thematic areas according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Engineering (ranked 4th), Computer Science (5th), and Mathematics (5th). However, this profile is contrasted by medium-risk signals in multiple affiliations, retractions, self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, where the university shows higher exposure than the national average. These vulnerabilities could undermine its mission "to shape lives and society through education, research and innovation," as the integrity of research is paramount to its societal impact. To fully align its practices with its mission of excellence, a proactive review of these specific risk areas is recommended, allowing the university to leverage its clear strengths into a comprehensive and robust culture of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.889, significantly higher than the national average of 0.229. This result indicates a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment average. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the elevated rate here warrants a closer look. It may signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that appears more pronounced at the university than is typical for the national scientific system.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.718 compared to the national average of 0.034, the institution shows a high exposure to risks associated with retracted publications. This suggests that the university is more susceptible to these integrity alerts than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This elevated value alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is 0.520, which is above the national average of 0.386. This indicates a high exposure to this particular risk, as the center is more prone to showing these signals than the national scientific community as a whole. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.254, while the national context shows a score of -0.153. This represents a moderate deviation, indicating that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting a need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution demonstrates a Z-score of -0.818, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.375. This highlights a significant institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk observed across the country. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation or dilute accountability. The university's low score suggests a healthy culture of authorship that values transparency and individual accountability, effectively resisting the national trend toward practices that could include 'honorary' or political authorship.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

With a Z-score of -0.247 against a national average of 0.862, the university showcases strong institutional resilience. This result suggests that its control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk of dependency that is more pronounced at the national level. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The institution's low score indicates that its excellence metrics are rooted in its own structural capabilities and intellectual leadership, avoiding the sustainability risk associated with a high reliance on collaborations where it does not lead.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score in this indicator is 0.764, marking a moderate deviation from the national standard of -0.401. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific record integrity and appear more prevalent here than across the country.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution records a Z-score of -0.251, in sharp contrast to the national average of 1.180. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its wider environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and signal academic endogamy. The university's very low score indicates a strong commitment to independent external peer review and global visibility, successfully avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity without standard competitive validation, a risk more present at the national level.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.615, the institution performs better than the already low-risk national average of -0.059. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The university's very low score demonstrates a commendable focus on publishing significant new knowledge, effectively avoiding practices that distort scientific evidence and prioritize volume over substance.