| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.582 | -0.253 |
|
Retracted Output
|
3.207 | 0.054 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.087 | 0.155 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.099 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.821 | 0.622 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.258 | 0.371 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.635 | 0.402 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.260 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.428 | 0.506 |
The University of Piraeus demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in operational governance and responsible authorship practices. The institution excels in maintaining very low-risk levels for output in institutional journals, multiple affiliations, and hyper-prolific authorship, indicating a strong foundation of ethical research conduct. However, this solid performance is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant alert in the rate of retracted output and medium-risk signals in publications within discontinued journals and redundant output. These weaknesses directly challenge the University's mission to provide "high-quality higher education" based on "internationally recognised criteria" and to "promote excellence." The identified risks, particularly concerning post-publication corrections and questionable dissemination channels, could undermine the credibility of its thematic strengths, where it ranks among the top national institutions in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (5th in Greece), Engineering (9th), and Computer Science (11th), according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, it is recommended that the University leverage its existing governance strengths to implement a targeted review of pre-publication quality assurance and researcher guidance on selecting reputable publication venues.
With a Z-score of -0.582, well below the national average of -0.253, the University of Piraeus exhibits a prudent profile in its affiliation patterns. This result suggests that the institution manages its collaborative processes with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the University's low rate indicates the absence of signals associated with strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping,” reflecting sound and transparent collaborative practices.
The institution's Z-score of 3.207 presents a critical alert, significantly accentuating the moderate risk level observed nationally (Z-score: 0.054). This severe discrepancy suggests that the University may be amplifying systemic vulnerabilities related to research quality control. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the global average points to a potential systemic failure in the mechanisms that ensure methodological rigor and integrity prior to publication. This finding warrants immediate qualitative verification by management, as it indicates a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture that could involve recurring malpractice.
The University demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a Z-score of -0.087 in a national context showing a medium risk (Z-score: 0.155). This indicates that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of academic insularity present in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the University’s low rate confirms it avoids the 'echo chambers' that can lead to endogamous impact inflation. This practice ensures its work is validated by the broader scientific community, reflecting genuine external recognition rather than influence inflated by internal dynamics.
A moderate deviation from the national standard is observed, with the University's Z-score at 0.099 (medium risk) compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.195. This suggests the institution has a greater sensitivity than its peers to the risk of publishing in substandard venues. A high proportion of output in such journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This pattern indicates that a portion of its scientific production is channeled through media lacking international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy among its researchers.
The institution shows strong institutional resilience in this area, with a Z-score of -0.821, contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.622. This suggests that the University's control mechanisms effectively filter out practices of author list inflation that may be more common elsewhere in the country. Outside of "Big Science" contexts where large author lists are normal, this low score indicates a healthy culture of accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable "honorary" authorship practices.
The University demonstrates differentiated management of its scientific impact, with a Z-score of 0.258 that is lower than the national average of 0.371, though both fall within a medium-risk band. This indicates the institution is moderating a risk that appears common in the country. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk where prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The University's more contained score suggests a healthier balance, reflecting a greater ability to exercise intellectual leadership in its collaborations and build structural, endogenous scientific prestige.
With a Z-score of -0.635, the University displays clear institutional resilience against a medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.402). This strong negative score indicates that institutional oversight effectively mitigates the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. While high productivity can be legitimate, the absence of hyperprolific authors at the University suggests a culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer quantity, thereby avoiding potential issues like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation.
The University's Z-score of -0.268 is in almost perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.260, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. This alignment demonstrates a commendable commitment to external validation. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, which can create conflicts of interest, the institution ensures its scientific production consistently undergoes independent peer review. This practice strengthens its global visibility and confirms its dedication to standard competitive validation over internal 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution exhibits differentiated management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.428 that, while indicating medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 0.506. This suggests the University is more effectively moderating a practice that is common within the country. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting studies. The University's comparatively lower score, while still warranting attention, points to a stronger institutional focus on publishing significant, coherent bodies of work rather than prioritizing volume.
