University of Ioannina

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Ioannina demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in its global score of 0.104. This indicates a solid foundation of responsible research practices, particularly distinguished by its prudent selection of publication venues and a low rate of retracted output. However, this stability is contrasted by a cluster of medium-to-significant risks centered on authorship and publication strategies, including hyper-authorship, hyperprolific authors, and redundant publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in fields such as Psychology, Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Physics and Astronomy, where it holds top-tier national rankings. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—especially those related to authorship transparency and accountability—present a potential conflict with the universal academic values of excellence and integrity. Addressing these vulnerabilities through targeted policies and training would not only mitigate risk but also reinforce the credibility of its significant scientific contributions, ensuring its research impact is both sustainable and unimpeachable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Ioannina shows a Z-score of -0.060, slightly higher than the national average of -0.253. With both the institution and the country operating at a low-risk level, this minor difference points toward an incipient vulnerability. It suggests that while the university's practices are well within normal parameters, it shows slightly more activity in this area than its national peers. This indicator warrants passive monitoring to ensure that the rate of multiple affiliations remains a reflection of legitimate researcher mobility and collaborative partnerships, rather than evolving into a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268, contrasting favorably with the national average of 0.054. This differential demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university effectively mitigates the systemic risks related to publication quality control that are more apparent at the national level. A low rate of retractions is a positive sign of responsible supervision and robust pre-publication review. Unlike the national trend, which shows some alert signals, the university’s performance suggests that its quality control mechanisms are not failing systemically and that its integrity culture successfully prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to a high volume of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's rate of self-citation corresponds to a Z-score of 0.276, while the national average is 0.155. Although both the university and the country operate at a medium risk level for this indicator, the university's higher score indicates a high exposure, suggesting it is more prone to showing alert signals than the national average. This elevated rate warrants attention as it can signal a tendency towards scientific isolation or "echo chambers" where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. It represents a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be artificially magnified by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of -0.247, the University of Ioannina demonstrates a more prudent profile in its choice of publication venues compared to the national average of -0.195. Both scores fall within a low-risk range, but the institution’s lower value indicates it manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard. This performance suggests that the university's researchers are effectively conducting due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, thereby avoiding the reputational risks associated with journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This diligence is crucial for preventing the waste of resources on "predatory" or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The University of Ioannina presents a Z-score of 1.924, a value that indicates a significant risk and is substantially higher than the national average of 0.622. This suggests a dynamic of risk accentuation, where the institution amplifies vulnerabilities related to authorship practices that are already present in the national scientific system. A high rate of hyper-authored output serves as a critical signal for potential author list inflation, which can dilute individual accountability and transparency. While extensive author lists are normal in "Big Science" fields, this level of activity warrants an urgent review to distinguish between legitimate massive collaborations and the possible prevalence of "honorary" or political authorship practices that could compromise the integrity of the institution's research record.

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

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.514 in this indicator, which is higher than the national average of 0.371. As both values fall within a medium-risk tier, the university's higher score signals a high exposure to this particular vulnerability compared to its national peers. This positive gap suggests that a notable portion of the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. It invites reflection on whether the university's high-impact metrics result from its own internal capacity and intellectual leadership, or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead the research, posing a potential risk to the long-term sustainability of its scientific influence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score for hyperprolific authors is 0.832, notably exceeding the national average of 0.402. While both figures are in the medium-risk category, the institution's score indicates a high exposure, making it more prone to this risk than its environment. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between the quantity and quality of output from a small number of researchers. Extreme individual publication volumes challenge the perceived limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and can point to underlying risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University of Ioannina shows a Z-score of -0.268, demonstrating integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.260. This alignment in the very low-risk category signifies a shared commitment to avoiding academic endogamy. The institution's minimal reliance on its own journals for publishing its research output is a strong positive signal. It indicates that scientific production is consistently subjected to independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and confirms that internal channels are not being used as "fast tracks" to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 0.962, the institution's rate of redundant output is considerably higher than the national average of 0.506. Both operate at a medium-risk level, but the university's score points to a high exposure, suggesting it is more susceptible to this practice than its peers. This value alerts to the potential practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as "salami slicing." This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.