| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.267 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.074 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
3.144 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.003 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.628 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.081 | -0.059 |
The Institute of Technology and Business in Ceske Budejovice presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity, contrasted by a critical, isolated vulnerability. With an overall score of 0.363, the institution demonstrates commendable resilience, outperforming national averages in key areas such as the prevention of retractions, institutional self-citation, and hyper-authorship. These strengths suggest robust internal quality controls and a commitment to external validation. This solid foundation supports its strong national standing in core thematic areas, including its Top 10 rankings in the Czech Republic for Economics, Econometrics and Finance and Business, Management and Accounting, as documented by SCImago Institutions Rankings. However, this positive landscape is severely undermined by a significant-risk score in publications within discontinued journals, a critical anomaly that requires immediate attention. This practice directly threatens the institution's mission of excellence and social responsibility, as it risks associating its high-quality research with predatory or low-integrity dissemination channels. To secure its reputation and build on its considerable strengths, the Institute should implement a targeted strategy to improve publication venue selection, thereby ensuring its research impact is both credible and sustainable.
The institution's Z-score of 0.267 is closely aligned with the national average of 0.229, indicating that its affiliation patterns reflect a systemic practice common throughout the Czech Republic's research ecosystem. This alignment suggests that the drivers for multiple affiliations are likely shared across the national system, stemming from common policies or collaborative structures. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this shared medium-risk level warrants a review to ensure these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping."
With a Z-score of -0.353, the institution demonstrates a significantly lower rate of retractions compared to the national average of 0.034. This positive divergence highlights a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks more prevalent at the country level. A low rate of retractions is a strong indicator of responsible supervision and robust quality control prior to publication. This performance suggests the institution has cultivated an integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to higher retraction rates elsewhere.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.074, a figure that stands in favorable contrast to the national average of 0.386. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as its control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the risk of insular citation practices observed more broadly in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate indicates a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and validation from the global scientific community. This performance effectively avoids the creation of 'echo chambers' and suggests that the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 3.144 represents a critical and severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.153. This atypical level of risk activity is an urgent red flag that requires a deep integrity assessment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a significant portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational risks. This situation suggests an urgent need for information literacy and policy reform to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -1.003 is substantially lower than the national average of 0.375, showcasing effective institutional resilience. This performance indicates that the center's control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation that are more common in the national context. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authorship, the institution promotes a culture where individual accountability and transparency in contributions are preserved. This serves as a positive signal that it effectively distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of 0.628, the institution demonstrates more effective management of its impact profile than the national average of 0.862. This indicates a differentiated approach that moderates the risk of dependency on external collaborations, a risk that appears more common across the country. While it is normal for institutions to leverage partnerships, a smaller gap suggests a healthier balance between impact derived from collaborations and impact generated from research where the institution exercises intellectual leadership. This points toward a more sustainable model where scientific prestige is increasingly built upon structural, internal capacity rather than being primarily dependent on exogenous factors.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the already low-risk national average of -0.401. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. This very low rate indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality in its researchers' output. It suggests the institution fosters an environment that avoids the potential pitfalls of hyper-prolificacy, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 signals a near-total absence of this risk, a stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 1.180. This is a clear case of preventive isolation, where the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the institution effectively sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This commitment to publishing in external, independent venues ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhances its global visibility, and confirms that it does not rely on internal 'fast tracks' to inflate publication metrics.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.081, indicating a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.059. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. A medium-risk score alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing.' This tendency, while not critical, warrants a review of publication ethics and author guidelines to ensure that research contributions are substantive and that the practice of data fragmentation does not distort the scientific evidence produced by the institution.
