| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
9.574 | -0.033 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.024 | -0.277 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.266 | -0.383 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.494 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.249 | 0.843 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.178 | 0.085 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.444 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.245 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.404 | -0.302 |
The Tinbergen Institute demonstrates a strong overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of 0.468. This performance is characterized by a notable duality: exceptional governance in most areas of research practice, contrasted with a single, critical risk indicator that requires immediate attention. The Institute's primary vulnerability lies in an atypically high Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which stands as a severe outlier against the national backdrop. However, this is offset by outstanding results in indicators measuring academic endogamy, authorship inflation, and intellectual leadership, where the Institute significantly outperforms national averages, showcasing robust internal controls. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the Institute's key thematic strengths are concentrated in Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; Mathematics; and Social Sciences. While the institution's mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified critical risk in affiliation practices could potentially conflict with any mission centered on transparency and ethical leadership. It is therefore recommended that the Institute urgently investigates the root causes of the affiliation anomaly while continuing to leverage its clear strengths in research integrity as a cornerstone of its academic excellence.
The Institute exhibits a Z-score of 9.574, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.033. This result indicates that the institution's activity in this area is highly atypical for its national context and warrants a deep integrity assessment. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The significant deviation from the national norm suggests that the Institute's patterns of affiliation require careful review to ensure they reflect genuine scientific partnership rather than practices that could compromise institutional transparency.
With a Z-score of -0.024, the Institute's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.277, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Retractions are complex events, and some can reflect responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors. However, a rate that begins to edge above the national standard, even while remaining low, suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be under strain. This slight elevation serves as a proactive alert to review and reinforce internal validation processes to prevent this indicator from escalating and to mitigate any potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture.
The Institute demonstrates an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.266, positioning it well below the national average of -0.383. This low-profile consistency indicates an absence of risk signals and aligns with a healthy national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the Institute's very low rate shows it successfully avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This result confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, reflecting strong external engagement and scrutiny.
The Institute's Z-score of -0.545 is slightly better than the already low national average of -0.494, indicating a state of total operational silence regarding this risk. This performance demonstrates an exemplary level of due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. By effectively avoiding publication in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, the Institute completely sidesteps the severe reputational risks associated with predatory practices and showcases a strong commitment to channeling its scientific output through credible and enduring media.
With a Z-score of -1.249, the Institute shows a profound disconnection from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (0.843). This signals a case of preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of its environment. By maintaining a very low rate of hyper-authored publications, the Institute effectively guards against the potential for author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency. This practice ensures that authorship reflects genuine contribution, distinguishing its work from environments where 'honorary' or political authorship might be more common.
The Institute's Z-score of -1.178 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.085, indicating a clear preventive isolation from national trends. This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk of dependency observed in its environment. A negative gap signifies that the impact of research led by the Institute is robust and self-sufficient. This demonstrates that its scientific prestige is structural and internally generated, reflecting true intellectual leadership rather than a strategic dependence on external collaborations for impact.
The Institute's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of 0.444, which sits at a medium risk level. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the institution's culture does not reflect the risk dynamics present in the country. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the Institute effectively mitigates the risks of prioritizing quantity over quality, such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without real participation. This focus ensures that the integrity of the scientific record is upheld over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The Institute's Z-score of -0.268 is marginally lower than the national average of -0.245, signifying total operational silence in this risk area. This performance, even stronger than the national baseline, shows a firm commitment to external validation. By not relying on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent, competitive peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its output is validated through standard international channels.
With a Z-score of -0.404, the Institute presents a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.302. This indicates that the institution manages its publication processes with greater rigor than the national standard. The lower score suggests a strong defense against the practice of 'salami slicing,' where studies are fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity. By fostering the publication of coherent, significant studies, the Institute ensures its contributions add meaningful knowledge to the scientific record rather than overburdening the review system with redundant content.
