Athens University of Economics and Business

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Athens University of Economics and Business demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.315, which is significantly better than the global average. This performance is anchored in exceptional strengths, particularly in areas that signal a culture of external validation and sustainable impact, including very low rates of institutional self-citation, reliance on institutional journals, and hyperprolific authorship. These positive indicators are complemented by the institution's strong academic standing, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, which place it among the top national performers in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (3rd in Greece), and Business, Management and Accounting (7th in Greece). However, two areas require strategic attention: the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Redundant Output, both of which are higher than the national average. These specific risks could potentially undermine the institution's mission to produce and disseminate knowledge responsibly. By addressing these vulnerabilities, the University can fully align its operational practices with its stated commitment to forming responsible citizens and leading in the international environment, thereby reinforcing its reputation for excellence.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.382 for multiple affiliations indicates a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.253. This suggests that the University shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national trend warrants a review of affiliation policies to ensure that all declared institutional links correspond to substantive and transparent contributions to the research output.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.090, the institution maintains a low-risk profile for retracted publications, demonstrating institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.054. This suggests that the University's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision through the correction of honest errors, this low score indicates that the institution's pre-publication quality controls are robust, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high rate of retractions and associated reputational damage.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.804 in institutional self-citation, a clear case of preventive isolation from the moderate-risk dynamics observed nationally (0.155). This result strongly indicates that the University does not replicate the risk of endogamous validation present in its environment. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, this remarkably low value confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being inflated by internal 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work undergoes sufficient external scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.412 for publications in discontinued journals demonstrates low-profile consistency, as this very low-risk signal aligns with the low-risk national standard (-0.195). This indicates a shared commitment to quality dissemination channels across the country, with the University performing even better than the average. The absence of this risk signal is a positive sign of due diligence in selecting publication venues, protecting the institution from the reputational damage associated with channeling work through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The University shows a low Z-score of -0.794 for hyper-authored output, indicating institutional resilience against a practice that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.622). This suggests that the institution's governance effectively mitigates the systemic risks of authorship inflation seen in its environment. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where extensive author lists are legitimate, a high rate can indicate the dilution of individual accountability. This low score suggests the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

With a Z-score of -0.873, the institution shows a very low gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role, demonstrating preventive isolation from the national trend (Z-score of 0.371). This outstanding result indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, not dependent on external partners. A wide positive gap can signal a sustainability risk where excellence is exogenous. In contrast, this low score confirms that the University's high-impact research is a direct result of its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.413 for hyperprolific authors, a very low value that signals a clear preventive isolation from the moderate-risk trend observed in the country (0.402). This indicates that the University does not replicate the national dynamics that can lead to extreme individual publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, this very low score suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals reflects integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.260. This total alignment in a very low-risk area demonstrates a shared national standard of maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. This practice avoids the conflicts of interest that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process, ensuring that its scientific production is validated through independent external peer review and is not at risk of academic endogamy.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.950, the institution shows high exposure to redundant publications, a rate notably higher than the national average of 0.506, despite both being in a medium-risk category. This suggests the institution is more prone to this alert signal than its peers. Citing previous work is a necessary part of science, but a high value here warns of the potential for 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic can distort the scientific evidence base and warrants a review of publication guidelines to encourage more substantial and impactful contributions.