| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.685 | 0.084 |
|
Retracted Output
|
4.165 | -0.212 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.290 | -0.061 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.347 | -0.455 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.032 | 0.994 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.827 | 0.275 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.454 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.263 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.230 | 0.514 |
Hochschule Bonn-Rhein-Sieg presents a robust integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of 0.911, which points to a solid foundation in research governance. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in mitigating systemic risks prevalent at the national level, particularly in areas concerning authorial practices (Hyperprolific Authors, Hyper-Authored Output) and intellectual leadership (Gap between Impact), showcasing a culture that prioritizes quality and internal capacity. This is further complemented by a strong international standing in key thematic areas, such as its Top 15 national ranking in Energy according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this strong performance is critically undermined by a severe discrepancy in the Rate of Retracted Output, which stands as an outlier and poses a substantial reputational threat. This specific vulnerability, along with a higher-than-average exposure to risks from Multiple Affiliations, directly challenges the pursuit of scientific excellence and social responsibility inherent to any higher education mission. To secure its standing, it is imperative for the institution to leverage its many strengths by urgently auditing its pre-publication quality control mechanisms and reinforcing its collaborative frameworks, thereby ensuring its operational practices fully align with its demonstrated potential for leadership.
The institution's Z-score of 0.685 is notably higher than the national average of 0.084. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the university shows a greater propensity for this activity. This suggests a high exposure to the associated risks. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review to ensure that these practices are not being used strategically to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” but rather reflect genuine, substantive collaborations.
A critical finding is the institution's Z-score of 4.165, which represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the low-risk national average of -0.212. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the norm alerts to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It strongly suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.290, the institution demonstrates a more prudent profile than the national standard (Z-score: -0.061). This indicates that the university manages its citation practices with greater rigor than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value is a positive signal of healthy external validation. It suggests the institution avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and that its academic influence is recognized by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.347 is in a very low-risk category, closely trailing the national average of -0.455. This indicates a minimal level of residual noise in an otherwise secure environment. While the risk is negligible, the institution is among the first to show any signal, however faint, in this area. Overall, the score reflects excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding the reputational damage associated with publishing in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -1.032, demonstrating notable resilience against a medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.994). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation present in the wider environment. This positive result indicates a culture that values transparency and individual accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -1.827, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.275). This very low score is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It suggests that the institution's prestige is built upon its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This result reflects a mature research ecosystem where excellence is generated internally, mitigating the risk of relying on exogenous impact.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in a very low-risk category, effectively isolating it from the medium-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score: 0.454). This excellent result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality in its scientific production. It suggests the institution fosters an environment that discourages practices such as coercive authorship or metric-chasing, where extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and compromise the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 shows an almost perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.263, aligning it with an environment of maximum scientific security. This very low rate of publication in its own journals is a strong positive signal. It demonstrates a commitment to independent external peer review, which enhances global visibility and mitigates the conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party in the validation of its research.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.230, the institution displays strong resilience, effectively managing a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 0.514). This suggests that institutional policies or culture successfully discourage the practice of fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By avoiding 'salami slicing,' the institution contributes more significant new knowledge to the scientific community and upholds the integrity of the available evidence.
