| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.813 | 0.084 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.146 | -0.212 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.219 | -0.061 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.333 | -0.455 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.129 | 0.994 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.488 | 0.275 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.454 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.263 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.148 | 0.514 |
Fachhochschule Dortmund demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.446 that indicates a performance significantly healthier than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its structural independence and internal capacity, reflected by very low-risk indicators in the impact gap of its led research (Ni_difference) and the rate of hyperprolific authors (Auth_plus25). These results suggest a culture that prioritizes sustainable, quality-driven research over metric inflation. The main area for monitoring is a medium-risk signal in Hyper-Authored Output, although this is managed more effectively than the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the institution shows notable strength in Computer Science. This strong integrity framework directly supports the core tenets of any university mission focused on academic excellence and social responsibility. By ensuring research is conducted transparently and ethically, the institution builds the public trust necessary to fulfill its societal role. The recommendation is to maintain these high standards of governance while implementing targeted training to address the minor vulnerabilities identified, thereby solidifying its position as a leader in responsible research practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.813 is in the low-risk category, contrasting with the national Z-score of 0.084, which signals a medium-level risk for Germany. This disparity suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks prevalent in the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, the institution's significantly lower rate indicates that it avoids strategic practices like "affiliation shopping" to inflate institutional credit, thereby maintaining a clear and robust academic identity.
With a Z-score of -0.146, the institution's risk level is low, yet it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.212. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes signifying responsible error correction. However, a rate that, while low, surpasses the national baseline could be an early signal that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may have room for improvement. This serves as a constructive alert to reinforce review processes and prevent any potential for recurring malpractice before it escalates.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.219, which is lower than the national average of -0.061, though both fall within the low-risk range. This indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, but the institution's lower value demonstrates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, effectively avoiding the risk of creating 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous validation.
The risk of publishing in discontinued journals is very low, with the institution's Z-score at -0.333 and the country's at -0.455. Although both scores are excellent, the institution's rate is marginally higher, representing what can be considered residual noise in an otherwise secure environment. A high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert regarding due diligence. In this case, the minimal signal suggests a small opportunity to further refine information literacy programs for researchers to completely eliminate exposure to predatory or low-quality dissemination channels.
The institution's Z-score of 0.129 places it in the medium-risk category, similar to the national trend (Z-score of 0.994). However, the institution's score is substantially lower, pointing to a differentiated management strategy that effectively moderates a risk common in the country. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' high rates of hyper-authorship can indicate author list inflation. The institution's relative control suggests it is more adept at distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and honorary authorship, thus better preserving individual accountability and transparency.
The institution demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from national risk dynamics. Its Z-score of -1.488 (very low risk) stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.275. A large positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own capabilities. Fachhochschule Dortmund's negative score indicates the opposite: its scientific impact is structural and driven by research where it exercises intellectual leadership. This is a key sign of a sustainable and self-sufficient research ecosystem.
With a very low-risk Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a clear preventive isolation from a vulnerability present at a medium level across the country (Z-score of 0.454). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Extreme publication volumes can challenge the feasibility of meaningful intellectual contribution and may signal issues like coercive authorship. The institution's excellent performance here points to a culture that fosters a healthy balance between productivity and quality, safeguarding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution operates in complete alignment with its national environment, which maintains maximum security in this area. The institutional Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the country's score of -0.263, both at a very low-risk level. This integrity synchrony is commendable, as excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By primarily utilizing external, independent peer-reviewed channels, the institution ensures its scientific production receives competitive validation and achieves global visibility.
A strong display of institutional resilience is evident in this indicator. The institution's low-risk Z-score of -0.148 is significantly better than the medium-risk level observed nationally (0.514). This suggests that its internal quality controls are effective at mitigating a widespread risk. High rates of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' involve fragmenting studies to artificially inflate publication counts, which distorts scientific evidence. The institution's low score indicates a research culture that values the contribution of significant new knowledge over the pursuit of volume.
