University of Thessaly

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Thessaly presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.134 that indicates a performance slightly better than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output and publication in institutional journals, demonstrating strong quality control and a commitment to external validation. While several indicators register a medium level of risk—including self-citation, hyper-authorship, and redundant output—the university consistently outperforms the national average in these areas, suggesting effective internal management that moderates systemic vulnerabilities present in Greece. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university demonstrates national leadership and excellence in key thematic areas, ranking 1st in Greece for Economics, Econometrics and Finance, 2nd for Veterinary, and 3rd for both Agricultural and Biological Sciences and Business, Management and Accounting. Although the institution's formal mission statement was not available for this analysis, these moderate risk signals could potentially conflict with universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility, as practices like self-citation or data fragmentation can undermine the pursuit of externally validated, impactful knowledge. To build on its solid foundation, the University of Thessaly is advised to leverage its areas of integrity excellence as a model while implementing targeted monitoring and awareness campaigns for the medium-risk indicators, thereby securing its position as a national leader in both research output and scientific ethics.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Thessaly's Z-score of -0.237 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.253, indicating a risk level that is statistically normal for its context and size. This synchrony suggests that the institution's collaborative patterns and researcher mobility are consistent with prevailing national standards. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the university's current rate does not raise concerns and reflects typical engagement in legitimate partnerships, such as those between universities and teaching hospitals or through dual appointments, which are common and productive features of the modern research landscape.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.484, the University of Thessaly demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, positioning it in a state of preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.054). This significant positive deviation suggests that the institution's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and effective, successfully preventing the systemic failures that may be affecting its environment. While some retractions reflect honest corrections, the university's near-absence of such events is a powerful indicator of a healthy integrity culture, characterized by high methodological rigor and a proactive approach to research quality that stands in stark contrast to the national trend.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 0.141 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.155, revealing a systemic pattern where the risk level reflects shared academic practices across Greece. A certain degree of self-citation is natural for building on established research lines, but the moderate level seen here and nationally warns of a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. This shared tendency suggests a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where an institution's influence might be amplified by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global scientific community, a characteristic that the University of Thessaly shares with its national peers.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University of Thessaly's Z-score of -0.074, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.195, signaling an incipient vulnerability that warrants review. This suggests the institution is marginally more exposed than its national peers to publishing in journals that fail to meet international standards. A high proportion of output in such venues can pose severe reputational risks and indicates a potential gap in due diligence when selecting publication channels. This minor signal should prompt a review of information literacy and guidance for researchers to ensure resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.204, the University of Thessaly demonstrates differentiated management of hyper-authorship, effectively moderating a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (Z-score: 0.622). While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', their prevalence outside these fields can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's ability to maintain a lower rate than the national average suggests stronger institutional norms or policies that help distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, reflecting a more controlled research environment.

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

The institution exhibits differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.319 that is notably lower than the national average of 0.371. This indicates that the University of Thessaly moderates the risk of impact dependency more effectively than its peers. A wide positive gap suggests that an institution's prestige is heavily reliant on collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. The university's more contained gap signals a healthier balance, suggesting its scientific excellence is more structurally rooted in its own internal capacity and less dependent on an exogenous or strategic positioning in external partnerships.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University of Thessaly shows effective, differentiated management of author productivity, with a Z-score of 0.325 that is considerably lower than the national average of 0.402. This indicates the institution is better at moderating the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme rates often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can signal an imbalance between quantity and quality. The university's lower score suggests a healthier academic environment that is less prone to dynamics like coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over sheer metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.268 demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with the national environment (Z-score: -0.260), reflecting a shared and total alignment in an area of maximum scientific security. Both the institution and the country show a very low reliance on in-house journals, which can otherwise create conflicts of interest by having the institution act as both judge and party. This shared commitment to publishing in external, independent venues mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and ensures that scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, reinforcing global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.210, the University of Thessaly demonstrates differentiated management by significantly moderating the rate of redundant output compared to the national average of 0.506. This risk, often called 'salami slicing,' involves fragmenting a single study into multiple minimal publications to artificially inflate productivity metrics. The university's much lower score indicates a stronger institutional culture that prioritizes the publication of coherent, significant new knowledge over sheer volume. This approach not only enhances the quality of its scientific contribution but also shows greater respect for the scientific review system compared to the broader national trend.