| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.476 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.651 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.114 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.592 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.007 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.216 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.143 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.101 | -0.059 |
The University of West Bohemia demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.248. This positions the institution favorably, indicating that its internal governance and research practices are generally sound and well-managed. Key strengths are evident in its exceptional control over hyperprolific authorship, its minimal dependency on external partners for research impact, and its effective mitigation of risks related to multiple affiliations and retracted publications, often outperforming national averages. These areas of excellence align with the university's strong positioning in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Arts and Humanities (ranked 5th nationally), Mathematics (7th), and Engineering (8th). However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate risk in institutional self-citation and redundant output, which are slightly elevated compared to the national context. These specific vulnerabilities could, if unaddressed, subtly undermine the institution's commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility by creating perceptions of inflated impact or prioritizing quantity over substance. A proactive approach, leveraging its clear strengths in governance to refine publication strategies in these specific areas, will ensure the university's research culture remains fully aligned with the highest standards of integrity and global recognition.
The university demonstrates strong institutional resilience in managing multiple affiliations, with its Z-score of -0.476 indicating a low-risk profile in contrast to the Czech Republic's medium-risk national average of 0.229. This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms and collaborative policies are effectively mitigating systemic risks that may be more prevalent elsewhere in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's low score indicates its collaborative activities are well-governed and do not signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, showcasing resilience against the medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.034). This performance suggests that the university’s pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and function as an effective filter against the vulnerabilities seen at a broader level. A high rate of retractions can indicate systemic failures in an institution's integrity culture or a lack of methodological rigor, so the university's low value is a positive signal of responsible and sound scientific practice.
The university shows a high exposure to risks associated with institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of 0.651 that is notably higher than the national average of 0.386. This indicates that the institution is more prone than its national peers to practices that could lead to scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, but the elevated rate here warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by global community recognition. This metric warrants a review to ensure sufficient external scrutiny of the university's work.
The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: -0.114) aligns closely with the national standard (Z-score: -0.153), reflecting a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. Both the university and the country exhibit a low-risk profile, suggesting that researchers are generally exercising appropriate due diligence in selecting reputable dissemination channels. This alignment indicates that existing information literacy and academic practices are sufficient and consistent with national norms, effectively avoiding the reputational damage associated with channeling work through 'predatory' or low-quality publications.
The university displays notable institutional resilience regarding hyper-authored publications. Its Z-score of -0.592 is significantly lower than the country's medium-risk score of 0.375, indicating that the institution’s policies or academic culture effectively act as a firewall against the inflation of author lists. This is a key integrity signal, suggesting a strong commitment to ensuring that authorship reflects meaningful contribution and individual accountability, thereby distinguishing its practices from the 'honorary' or political authorship that may be more common at the national level.
The institution demonstrates excellent resilience and scientific autonomy, with a negligible impact gap (Z-score: -0.007) compared to the country's medium-risk average (0.862). This low score signifies a healthy balance, where the impact of research led by the institution is on par with its overall collaborative impact. This is a strong indicator of sustainability, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is built on genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners for its high-impact work.
The university exhibits an exceptionally low rate of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.216 that is well below the already low national average of -0.401. This absence of risk signals demonstrates a low-profile consistency that aligns with, and even exceeds, the national standard for responsible productivity. This very low score is a strong positive indicator, suggesting a research environment that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer volume, effectively avoiding potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The university demonstrates differentiated management in its use of institutional journals. While both the institution (Z-score: 0.143) and the country (Z-score: 1.180) fall within a medium-risk category, the university's score is substantially lower, indicating it successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced nationally. This suggests a balanced approach, using in-house journals for training and local dissemination without creating an over-reliance that could lead to academic endogamy or conflicts of interest. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution ensures its research is more frequently validated through independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility.
A moderate deviation from the national standard is observed in the rate of redundant output. The university's Z-score of 0.101 places it in the medium-risk category, while the country average (-0.059) indicates a low-risk environment. This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to practices like 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This practice can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the review system, prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge. This signal warrants a review of publication guidelines to reinforce the importance of disseminating research in complete, impactful units.
