| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.046 | 0.084 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.131 | -0.212 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.460 | -0.061 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.506 | -0.455 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.267 | 0.994 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.105 | 0.275 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.680 | 0.454 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.263 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.411 | 0.514 |
Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover demonstrates a robust overall performance in scientific integrity, reflected in a low global risk score of 0.232. The institution's primary strengths lie in its diligent selection of publication venues and its minimal reliance on institutional journals, indicating a strong commitment to external validation and quality. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a critical alert regarding the rate of retracted publications, which is significantly higher than the national average and requires immediate attention. A secondary area for review is the rate of hyperprolific authors, which also exceeds the national benchmark. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's outstanding international leadership, confirmed by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, especially in Veterinary (ranked #1 in Germany), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Medicine. The institution's mission to achieve "excellence" and be a "leader in research" is clearly supported by its thematic dominance, but the identified risk in post-publication corrections could undermine this very excellence. To fully align its integrity practices with its mission, the institution should focus on reinforcing pre-publication quality control and reviewing authorship policies, thereby ensuring its prestigious reputation is built on an unshakeable foundation of scientific rigor.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.046, while the national average is 0.084. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the center successfully moderates risks related to multiple affiliations that appear to be more common at the national level. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the institution demonstrates a more controlled approach, reducing the potential for "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed with greater transparency and justification.
A severe discrepancy is noted in this area, with the institution's Z-score at 1.131, in stark contrast to the national average of -0.212. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, and while some may result from honest error correction, a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This 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 safeguard its scientific reputation.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.460, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.061. This indicates that the center manages its citation processes with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, the institution's low rate demonstrates a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and effectively avoids the risks of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or endogamously inflating its impact, thereby reinforcing that its academic influence is validated by the global community.
With a Z-score of -0.506, closely aligned with the national average of -0.455, the institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area. This performance indicates total operational silence, with risk levels even slightly below the national average. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The institution's excellent score demonstrates a strong commitment to publishing in reputable venues, effectively avoiding reputational risks and the waste of resources associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.267, compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.994, points to significant institutional resilience. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of authorship inflation observed nationally. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate a dilution of individual accountability. The institution's low score signals a commendable ability to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, fostering greater transparency.
The institution's Z-score of 0.105 is lower than the national average of 0.275, indicating differentiated management of its collaborative impact profile. This suggests the institution moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated. By maintaining a smaller gap, the institution demonstrates a healthier balance, suggesting that its excellence metrics are more closely tied to its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership, reducing the risk of a reputation built on exogenous dependency.
With a Z-score of 0.680, which is higher than the national average of 0.454, the institution shows a high exposure to risks associated with hyperprolific authorship. This indicates the center is more prone to showing alert signals in this area than its environment. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing'—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of authorship guidelines.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.263, demonstrating integrity synchrony and total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. This very low score indicates that the institution does not rely on its own journals for dissemination. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and risks of academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The institution's practice of seeking external validation for its research reinforces its commitment to global visibility and competitive, merit-based publication standards.
The institution's Z-score of -0.411, set against a national average of 0.514, highlights its institutional resilience in preventing redundant publications. Internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the risk of 'salami slicing,' a practice more prevalent at the national level. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation to artificially inflate productivity. The institution's low score demonstrates a strong preference for publishing significant, coherent studies over minimal publishable units, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respecting the academic review system.
