| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.143 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.454 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.178 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.993 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.287 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.071 | -0.059 |
The University of Economics and Business demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.301, indicating robust governance and a commitment to high-quality research practices. The institution's performance is characterized by a consistent and significant outperformance of national averages across nearly all integrity indicators, with particularly notable strengths in preventing hyper-prolific authorship and avoiding academic endogamy through institutional journals. The only area presenting a moderate, though well-managed, risk is the dependency on external collaboration for impact, a common challenge which the University navigates more effectively than its national peers. This solid foundation of ethical practice directly supports the institution's outstanding academic reputation, evidenced by its top-tier national rankings in core thematic areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked #2), Business, Management and Accounting (#3), and Psychology (#3), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This low-risk profile is in perfect alignment with the University's mission to provide "superior quality" education and act as a "socially responsible institution." By maintaining such high standards, the University ensures that its pursuit of excellence is built on a foundation of trust and credibility, safeguarding its international reputation. The strategic recommendation is to maintain these exemplary control mechanisms while focusing on initiatives that bolster intellectual leadership in collaborative projects, thereby transforming a managed risk into a future strength.
The University of Economics and Business shows a Z-score of -0.143, which is significantly lower than the national average of 0.229. This contrast suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the University's prudent profile indicates that its partnerships are well-governed, avoiding the risk of disproportionately high rates that can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." This controlled approach reinforces the transparency and integrity of its collaborative footprint.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that stands in contrast to the medium-risk level of the country (0.034). This performance points to effective institutional filters that prevent the escalation of issues observed at the national level. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly lower than the national context suggests that the University's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. This indicates a strong integrity culture and a commitment to methodological rigor that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or systemic errors that a higher rate might imply.
The University's Z-score of -0.454 is substantially better than the national average of 0.386, demonstrating robust institutional resilience against a common national trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the country's medium-risk score suggests a tendency toward scientific isolation. The University, however, effectively mitigates this risk, indicating that its research is validated by the broader international community rather than within an 'echo chamber.' This low rate of self-citation confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by global recognition, not by endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.178 is closely aligned with the national average of -0.153, reflecting a state of statistical normality. In this context, the risk of publishing in discontinued journals is low and consistent with the expected level for its environment and size. This alignment suggests that the University's researchers, like their national peers, generally exercise appropriate due diligence in selecting publication venues. The low score indicates that there is no systemic issue with channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the institution from reputational harm.
Displaying a Z-score of -0.993, the University operates with a significantly lower risk than the national average of 0.375. This strong performance suggests the institution acts as an effective filter against national practices that may lead to authorship inflation. In disciplines outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability and transparency. The University's very low score indicates a healthy authorship culture, successfully distinguishing between necessary collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby upholding the principle of meaningful contribution.
The University's Z-score of 0.287, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 0.862. This demonstrates differentiated management, where the institution effectively moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. This gap signals a degree of dependency on external partners for impact, but the University's relative control suggests a more balanced portfolio of internal and collaborative research. This performance invites a strategic reflection on strengthening internal capacity to ensure that its scientific prestige becomes increasingly structural and less reliant on collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution exhibits a very low risk level, which is even lower than the country's already low-risk score of -0.401. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals is in full alignment with, and even exceeds, the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's excellent score indicates that it fosters a healthy balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The University's Z-score of -0.268 marks a state of preventive isolation from a significant national risk, as the country's average stands at a high 1.180. This stark difference shows the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the University avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice reinforces its commitment to global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.071 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.059, indicating a situation of statistical normality. The risk level for redundant publications, or 'salami slicing,' is low and what would be expected for an institution of its context. This suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity is not a systemic issue. The University's research culture appears to align with the national standard in prioritizing the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume, thereby respecting the scientific record and the peer-review system.
