| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.229 | 0.084 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.118 | -0.212 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.103 | -0.061 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.455 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.838 | 0.994 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.680 | 0.275 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.454 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.263 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.514 |
Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt demonstrates an exceptionally strong scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.476. This result indicates a robust and responsible research ecosystem, characterized by a consistent absence of significant risk signals across all evaluated indicators. The institution not only aligns with but frequently surpasses national benchmarks for good scientific practice, showcasing a culture of quality and ethical rigor. This solid foundation of integrity supports its academic strengths, particularly in areas where it holds a prominent national position according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, such as Mathematics (ranked 38th in Germany), Business, Management and Accounting (64th), and both Economics, Econometrics and Finance and Environmental Science (67th). Although the institution's specific mission statement was not localized for this analysis, this outstanding integrity profile serves as a fundamental pillar for any mission centered on academic excellence, ethical conduct, and social responsibility. The near-total absence of risk ensures that the university's contributions are credible, sustainable, and trustworthy. It is recommended that the institution leverages this demonstrable commitment to integrity as a strategic asset to enhance its reputation, attract top-tier talent, and build confidence among funding agencies and international partners.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.229, in contrast to the national average for Germany of 0.084. This significant difference suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, as the university appears to have effective control mechanisms that mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation practices observed more broadly across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's controlled rate indicates that its collaborative framework is well-managed, successfully avoiding "affiliation shopping" dynamics and ensuring clear and transparent attribution of academic credit.
The institution's Z-score for retracted output is -0.118, which is slightly above the national average of -0.212. This minor deviation suggests an incipient vulnerability that warrants preventive monitoring before it could potentially escalate. Retractions are complex events, and while some reflect responsible error correction, a rate significantly higher than the norm can alert to systemic failures in pre-publication quality control. Although the current risk level is low, this slight divergence from the national benchmark indicates that a proactive review of supervision protocols and methodological rigor could reinforce the institution's integrity culture and prevent future issues.
With a Z-score of -0.103, the institution's rate of self-citation is in close alignment with the German national average of -0.061. This indicates a state of statistical normality, where the level of internal citation is as expected for an institution of its context and size. A certain degree of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines. The university's score confirms that it is not exhibiting signs of concerning scientific isolation or "echo chambers," where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This balanced profile suggests that the institution's academic influence is appropriately recognized by the global community, avoiding the risk of endogamous impact inflation.
The institution achieves a Z-score of -0.545, performing even better than the already low national average of -0.455. This result signifies a state of total operational silence regarding this risk, confirming an absence of signals in this area. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's exceptionally low score demonstrates that its researchers are effectively exercising this diligence, avoiding predatory or low-quality media and thereby protecting institutional reputation and resources from being wasted on practices that lack international ethical or quality standards.
The institution records a Z-score of -0.838, a figure significantly lower than the national average of 0.994. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university effectively filters out the national tendency toward higher rates of hyper-authorship. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where extensive author lists are normal, a high Z-score can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's low score suggests that its authorship practices are transparent and well-governed, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic "honorary" or political authorship.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.680, standing in stark contrast to the national average of 0.275. This result points to a high degree of institutional resilience, suggesting that the university's research prestige is built on strong internal capacity rather than depending on external collaborations for impact. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where scientific prestige is exogenous and not structural. The university's negative score is a positive sign, indicating that the work led by its own researchers has a solid impact, reflecting genuine intellectual leadership and a sustainable model of scientific excellence.
With an extremely low Z-score of -1.413, the institution shows a clear preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed in its national environment, where the average score is 0.454. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's near-total absence of this phenomenon indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, reinforcing a research culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of productivity metrics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the German national average of -0.263. This demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony, showing complete alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent external peer review. The university's very low score confirms that its scientific production is overwhelmingly channeled through external, competitive venues, ensuring global visibility and standard validation for its research.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.186, indicating a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (average score of 0.514). This shows that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A high rate of redundant output, or "salami slicing," alerts to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, which distorts scientific evidence. The institution's exceptionally low score demonstrates a strong commitment to publishing complete and significant work, prioritizing new knowledge over volume.
