| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.233 | 1.375 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.033 | -0.214 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.503 | -0.210 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.496 | -0.446 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.240 | 0.455 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.388 | -0.120 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.150 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.213 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.212 | -0.442 |
Hanken School of Economics presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall risk score of -0.171. The institution demonstrates exceptional governance across the vast majority of indicators, with six of the nine metrics falling into the 'very low risk' category, often significantly outperforming national benchmarks. This foundation of integrity is particularly strong in areas such as Institutional Self-Citation, Hyper-Authored Output, and the Gap in Impact, reflecting a culture of external validation and sustainable internal research capacity. However, this outstanding performance is contrasted by a single critical alert: the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is significantly elevated. The institution's thematic strengths, as evidenced by its high rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings for Business, Management and Accounting and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, are built on this solid integrity base. Yet, the high rate of multiple affiliations could pose a reputational risk, potentially undermining the core mission values of "integrity," "academic excellence," and "social responsibility." To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission, it is recommended that the institution celebrate its clear strengths in research integrity while undertaking a focused, qualitative review of its affiliation policies to ensure they reflect legitimate collaboration rather than strategic credit inflation.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.233, a value that indicates a significant risk level and is substantially higher than the national average of 1.375. This finding suggests that the institution is not merely participating in a national trend but is actively amplifying it. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a critical need for review. The data points towards a potential systemic practice of strategic affiliation to inflate institutional credit, a dynamic often referred to as “affiliation shopping.” This accentuation of a national vulnerability requires an urgent examination of internal policies to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive, transparent, and equitable collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.033, the institution's risk level is low, yet it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.214. This subtle difference suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate is generally positive; however, the slight elevation compared to the national context indicates that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be strengthened. This signal should be seen as a proactive opportunity to review and reinforce methodological rigor and supervision protocols to prevent any potential issues from escalating and ensure the long-term integrity of the institution's research output.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.503, positioning it far below the national average of -0.210. This result is a strong positive indicator, reflecting a research culture that avoids the risks of scientific isolation and 'echo chambers.' Such a low rate of institutional self-citation signifies that the institution's work is validated by the broader international scientific community, not through internal dynamics that can artificially inflate impact. This strong performance underscores a commitment to external scrutiny and global engagement, ensuring its academic influence is built on widespread recognition.
The institution's Z-score of -0.496 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.446, with both values indicating a very low risk. This synchrony demonstrates a shared and effective commitment to publishing in reputable and stable academic venues. This result confirms that the institution's researchers exercise strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, successfully mitigating the reputational and resource risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices. This alignment with the secure national environment is a testament to the institution's robust information literacy and quality assurance standards.
A very low Z-score of -1.240 clearly distinguishes the institution from the national context, where the average score of 0.455 signifies a medium risk. This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully resists national trends that could lead to authorship issues. The data suggests a healthy culture where author lists are not inflated and individual accountability is maintained. By avoiding the dynamics of 'honorary' or political authorship, the institution upholds a high standard of transparency and ensures that credit is tied to genuine intellectual contribution, a practice that is fundamental to scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -1.388 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting favorably with the national average of -0.120. This indicates a minimal and healthy gap between the impact of its overall output and the output it leads, signaling strong scientific self-sufficiency. This result suggests that the institution's academic prestige is not dependent on external partners but is driven by its own structural research capacity. This is a key indicator of sustainability, demonstrating that excellence is generated from within and that the institution exercises true intellectual leadership in its collaborations.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a near-complete absence of hyperprolific authorship, a result that is significantly better than the national average of -0.150. This exceptional performance indicates a strong institutional focus on the quality and substance of research over sheer publication volume. It effectively mitigates the risks associated with extreme productivity, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This commitment to a balanced and realistic publication output reinforces the integrity of the scientific record and promotes a healthier academic environment.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, falling even below the minimal national average of -0.213. This operational silence in a non-risk area is a clear strength, demonstrating a profound commitment to independent, external peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and the risks of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production is validated through globally competitive channels, thereby maximizing its visibility and reinforcing its credibility on the international stage.
The institution's Z-score of -0.212 places it in the low-risk category, but it is discernibly higher than the national average of -0.442. This gap suggests an incipient vulnerability regarding the fragmentation of research. While the overall risk is contained, this signal indicates a potential tendency towards 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into multiple minimal publications to inflate output metrics. This warrants a proactive review of publication guidelines to ensure that the institutional culture continues to prioritize the dissemination of significant, coherent knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics.
