| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.416 | -1.210 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.474 | 2.109 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.526 | -0.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.362 | 3.512 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.021 | -0.008 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.520 | 1.929 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
4.936 | 7.012 |
The Polytechnic University of Tirana presents a profile of notable contrasts, combining national leadership in key scientific domains with significant vulnerabilities in research integrity that require strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.453, the institution's performance is marked by areas of exceptional governance, particularly its very low risk in multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals. However, this is counterbalanced by a significant alert in redundant output (salami slicing) and medium-level risks in retractions, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a preeminent position in Albania, ranking first in critical fields such as Engineering, Computer Science, Energy, and Mathematics. This thematic strength is foundational, yet the identified integrity risks directly challenge the core of its mission to foster "careful management" and guarantee "healthy and quality" outcomes through scientific research. Practices that prioritize volume over substance, such as redundant publication, undermine the credibility and excellence essential to achieving this mission. To secure its leadership and fully align its practices with its stated values, the university is encouraged to leverage its academic strengths as a platform for reinforcing its culture of scientific integrity, ensuring its influential research is both impactful and irreproachable.
The university demonstrates an exemplary profile in this area, with a Z-score of -1.416, which is even lower than the already minimal national average of -1.210. This result signifies a complete absence of risk signals, positioning the institution as a benchmark of transparency in affiliation practices within a low-risk national context. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's data, however, indicates clear and unambiguous authorship attribution, reflecting robust governance and a commitment to ethical academic crediting.
The institution exhibits a medium risk level for retracted publications with a Z-score of 0.474. Although this signals a need for attention, it is important to note that the university is effectively containing this issue compared to the national context, which shows a significant risk level (Z-score of 2.109). This suggests that while some quality control issues may exist, the institution's internal mechanisms are more robust than the national standard. A high rate of retractions can suggest that pre-publication quality controls are failing systemically. In this case, the medium-level alert indicates a vulnerability in the integrity culture that warrants qualitative review by management to prevent recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor.
With a Z-score of 1.526, the university presents a medium risk in Institutional Self-Citation, a notable figure when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.028. This divergence indicates that the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. 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' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The university's Z-score of 1.362 indicates a medium risk regarding publication in discontinued journals. This performance, while concerning, demonstrates relative containment when measured against the country's significant risk level of 3.512. The institution appears to operate with more order than the national average, but the signal is still a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-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 reputational risks and suggesting a need to enhance information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a prudent and low-risk profile in hyper-authored publications, with a Z-score of -1.021, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.008. This indicates that the university manages its authorship practices with more rigor than the national standard. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The university's low score suggests that its collaborative practices are well-calibrated, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
The university shows a medium-risk Z-score of 1.520 in this indicator, reflecting a dependency on external collaboration for impact. However, this risk is managed more effectively than at the national level, where the average Z-score is 1.929. This suggests a differentiated management approach that moderates a common risk in the country. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, where scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. The university's score invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The university demonstrates exceptional performance regarding the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is perfectly aligned with the national average. This indicates a complete absence of risk signals in this area, reflecting a shared national standard of maximum scientific security. This alignment confirms that the institution is not experiencing issues related to extreme individual publication volumes, which can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. This showcases robust internal controls and a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over inflated productivity metrics.
In this indicator, the university's Z-score of -0.268 is identical to the national average, signifying total alignment with a low-risk environment. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution avoids excessive dependence on its own publication channels. While in-house journals can be valuable, a high score warns of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest. The university's very low score confirms that its scientific production overwhelmingly undergoes independent external peer review, ensuring global visibility and competitive validation rather than relying on internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of 4.936 for Redundant Output constitutes a significant alert, placing it in a high-risk category. While this is a critical issue, it is noteworthy that the university demonstrates more control than the national average, which stands at an even more severe 7.012. This attenuated alert suggests that while the university is part of a national environment with systemic issues, it is mitigating the problem to some extent. Nevertheless, a high value warns of the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This 'salami slicing' distorts available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over significant new knowledge and requiring urgent strategic review.
