| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.400 | 0.084 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.043 | -0.212 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.008 | -0.061 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.458 | -0.455 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.884 | 0.994 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.314 | 0.275 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.001 | 0.454 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.263 |
|
Redundant Output
|
2.746 | 0.514 |
Universitat Passau demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a favorable global score of -0.244. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in areas that signal genuine research leadership and a commitment to quality, particularly in its very low risk associated with dependency on external collaborators for impact, the absence of hyperprolific authorship, and diligent selection of publication venues. These strengths align well with its thematic leadership within Germany, where SCImago Institutions Rankings data places it prominently in Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Social Sciences; and Business, Management and Accounting. However, this strong foundation is critically undermined by a significant alert in the Rate of Redundant Output ('salami slicing') and a medium-risk level in Institutional Self-Citation. These specific vulnerabilities directly challenge the institutional mission of providing "comprehensive education through science," as fragmenting knowledge and operating in a potential 'echo chamber' contradict the principles of holistic and externally validated scientific inquiry. To fully realize its mission and safeguard its reputation, the university is advised to implement targeted strategies to address these specific integrity risks, thereby ensuring its operational practices are in complete harmony with its stated values of excellence.
The institution presents a Z-score of -0.400, a value indicating low risk and favorably positioned against the national average of 0.084, which falls into a medium-risk category. This suggests a notable institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to be effectively mitigating systemic risks that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of academic mobility and partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates it is successfully avoiding strategic practices like "affiliation shopping," a risk to which its national environment seems more susceptible. This demonstrates a commendable governance that reinforces institutional credit is being assigned appropriately.
With a Z-score of -0.043, the institution's risk level is low, though it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.212. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions can be complex events, and while some reflect responsible error correction, a rate that edges above the national benchmark, even within a low-risk band, may suggest that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be facing minor strains. This signal should be reviewed proactively to ensure that it does not escalate into a more systemic vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture.
The university's Z-score of 0.008 places it in a medium-risk category, representing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.061. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors in this area compared to its national peers. A certain degree of self-citation is natural for building on established research lines, but the observed medium-risk level could signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers.' This value serves as a warning about the potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.458 is almost identical to the national average of -0.455, with both reflecting a very low-risk environment. This demonstrates a perfect integrity synchrony, indicating total alignment with a national context of maximum security in publication practices. This result confirms that the university's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects itself from severe reputational risks and ensures its resources are not wasted on predatory or low-quality publishing practices.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.884, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national Z-score of 0.994, which indicates a medium level of risk. This disparity highlights the university's institutional resilience and suggests its control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in its environment. The institution's performance indicates a clear ability to distinguish between necessary, large-scale collaboration and problematic practices such as author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This maintains a high standard of individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution exhibits an exceptionally strong profile with a Z-score of -1.314, signifying a very low risk. This result represents a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics observed at the national level, where the average score is 0.275 (medium risk). A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for impact, but this institution's negative score indicates the opposite: the impact of research led by its own authors is particularly high. This demonstrates robust internal capacity and true intellectual leadership, suggesting its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, not the result of a strategic position in collaborations led by others.
The university's Z-score of -1.001 places it in the very low-risk category, effectively isolating it from the medium-risk trend observed nationally (Z-score of 0.454). This excellent result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics of its environment. The data suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research production, steering clear of extreme individual publication volumes that challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This performance signals the successful prevention of dynamics such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' ensuring that authorship is a reflection of genuine scientific work rather than a pursuit of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's risk is very low and mirrors the national average of -0.263. This reflects an integrity synchrony and a complete alignment with a secure national environment. While institutional journals can be useful for local dissemination, an over-reliance on them can create conflicts of interest. The university's very low score indicates it successfully avoids the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances its global visibility and prevents the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate academic records.
The institution's Z-score of 2.746 is a significant risk indicator, representing a critical concern. This value shows a sharp accentuation of a vulnerability that is already present in the national system, which has a medium-risk score of 0.514. Such a high score is a strong alert for the practice of data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study may be divided into multiple 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer review system but, more importantly, distorts the available scientific evidence. This is a critical issue that requires urgent review and intervention to ensure the integrity of the institution's research record.
