Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitat Greifswald

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitat Greifswald demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.186 that indicates sound governance and operational practices generally exceeding national standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication channels, evidenced by very low-risk indicators for output in discontinued or institutional journals, and its effective management of affiliations and self-citation. However, areas of vulnerability have been identified, specifically concerning authorship practices, with significant risk in hyper-authored output and medium risk in hyperprolific authors, alongside a notable dependency on external collaborations for scientific impact. These findings are juxtaposed with the university's strong thematic performance, as highlighted by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places it among Germany's top institutions in key areas such as Dentistry (8th), Veterinary (18th), Mathematics (28th), and Chemistry (29th). While the institution's commitment to "social, economic and cultural responsibility" is largely upheld by its low-risk profile, the identified vulnerabilities in authorship and impact dependency could challenge its mission to foster "freedom and autonomy of thought." If left unaddressed, these practices risk prioritizing metric performance over the substantive transfer of research results, creating a potential misalignment with its core values. It is therefore recommended that the university leverage its strong governance foundation to implement targeted strategies that address these specific challenges, thereby ensuring its operational integrity fully aligns with its distinguished academic mission.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a very low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.921), a stark contrast to the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score: 0.084). This suggests a deliberate and effective policy that insulates the university from the broader national dynamics where strategic affiliation practices might be more common. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the institution's exceptionally low score indicates strong internal governance that prevents potential "affiliation shopping" or the artificial inflation of institutional credit, ensuring clarity and transparency in its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution demonstrates a prudent approach to publication quality, with a rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.362) that is even lower than the already low national average (Z-score: -0.212). This indicates that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. A rate significantly lower than the average suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively, reinforcing the integrity of its scientific record and minimizing the incidence of systemic errors or potential malpractice that could lead to retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -0.671, the institution exhibits a significantly lower rate of institutional self-citation compared to the national benchmark (Z-score: -0.061). This prudent profile suggests that the university's research is well-integrated into the global scientific community, avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value demonstrates a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and recognition, confirming that the institution's academic influence is driven by broad community engagement rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals (Z-score: -0.477) is virtually non-existent and perfectly aligned with the secure national environment (Z-score: -0.455). This demonstrates a complete synchronization with best practices in selecting reputable dissemination channels. This alignment signifies robust institutional awareness and due diligence, effectively protecting its research from being associated with predatory or low-quality outlets. Such performance ensures that institutional resources are not wasted and its reputation remains untarnished by questionable publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution displays a significant rate of hyper-authored output (Z-score: 1.614), a level that notably amplifies the medium-risk vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score: 0.994). This trend requires immediate attention. When this pattern appears outside 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This accentuation of risk suggests that internal practices may be encouraging 'honorary' or political authorships, a dynamic that must be investigated to distinguish legitimate massive collaboration from practices that compromise authorship integrity.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution shows a medium-risk gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role (Z-score: 0.619), a value notably higher than the national average (Z-score: 0.275). This high exposure suggests a potential sustainability risk, as the university's scientific prestige appears more dependent on external partners than on its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from real internal capacity or strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, a situation that could challenge long-term research autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 0.533, the institution shows a higher propensity for hyperprolific authorship than the national average (Z-score: 0.454), indicating a medium-risk exposure. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. This elevated rate serves as an alert for potential risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation. It points to a need to review internal incentive structures to ensure they prioritize the integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university demonstrates an exemplary low rate of publication in its own institutional journals (Z-score: -0.268), a figure that is in perfect alignment with the national standard of maximum integrity (Z-score: -0.263). This synchrony indicates a strong commitment to external, independent peer review and global visibility. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific output is validated through standard competitive channels rather than potentially biased internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution effectively manages the risk of redundant publications, showing a medium-risk Z-score of 0.121 that is substantially lower than the national average (Z-score: 0.514). This demonstrates a differentiated management approach that successfully moderates a practice more common in the wider national context. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's ability to contain this risk suggests a culture that discourages 'salami slicing' and prioritizes the communication of significant new knowledge over the maximization of publication metrics.