Corvinus University of Budapest

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Corvinus University of Budapest presents a profile of moderate risk exposure (Overall Score: 0.124), characterized by significant thematic strengths counterbalanced by specific vulnerabilities in its research practices. The institution demonstrates exemplary control in areas such as the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors and Hyper-Authored Output, indicating a healthy research culture regarding individual productivity and collaboration. However, several indicators, including the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, show a higher exposure to risk than the national average. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university is a national leader in Business, Management and Accounting and Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and holds a top-tier position in Social Sciences. While these rankings affirm its academic excellence, the identified integrity risks could undermine its mission to maintain "an international standard" and promote "responsible work." Practices that suggest a focus on quantity over quality, such as potential academic endogamy or data fragmentation, are inconsistent with the pursuit of unquestionable professional and moral standards. It is recommended that the university leverage its dominant position in its key disciplines to pioneer enhanced integrity policies, thereby ensuring its operational practices fully align with its stated mission of excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 1.035 is higher than the national average of 0.726, indicating a greater propensity for this practice compared to its peers in Hungary. This high exposure suggests that the university is more prone to the associated risks. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a closer look to ensure it reflects genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," which could artificially boost visibility without a corresponding increase in substantive contribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.032, the university shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk value of -0.233. This discrepancy suggests the institution is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its national counterparts. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university demonstrates effective management in this area, with a Z-score of 0.101 that is considerably lower than the national average of 0.310. This indicates that the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by keeping this rate in check, the university avoids the creation of scientific 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This prudent approach strengthens the credibility of its impact, ensuring it is driven by global community recognition rather than endogamous dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.120 reflects a low-risk profile, yet it is slightly higher than the national average of -0.189, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk is minimal, this subtle difference suggests that the university's researchers show slightly more activity in this area than the national trend. This warrants a review of dissemination guidelines to ensure that all output is channeled through media that meet international ethical and quality standards, thereby proactively mitigating any potential reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

Corvinus University of Budapest shows strong institutional resilience in this indicator, with a Z-score of -0.818, which is well below the medium-risk national average of 0.352. This demonstrates that the university's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. The institution appears to successfully distinguish between necessary massive collaboration, typical in 'Big Science,' and author list inflation. This positive signal reflects a culture that values transparency and individual accountability over the artificial inflation of authorship, which can dilute responsibility.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.014 is higher than the national average of 0.826, indicating a high exposure to dependency on external collaboration for impact. This wider-than-average gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige is exogenous and not fully reflective of its internal capacity. This invites strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal leadership or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual control.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of -1.413, the institution demonstrates low-profile consistency, showing a complete absence of risk signals in an area where the country already has a low-risk average (-0.462). This excellent result indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. It suggests that the university's culture does not encourage practices such as coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' simply to inflate publication counts, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record and ensuring that authorship is tied to meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of 1.206 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.703, signaling high exposure to the risks of academic endogamy. This suggests a greater-than-average dependence on its own journals, which can create a conflict of interest as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice raises concerns that a portion of its scientific output may be bypassing independent external peer review, potentially limiting its global visibility and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.804 is double the national average of 0.409, indicating high exposure to practices related to data fragmentation. This elevated rate of bibliographic overlap between publications alerts to the potential for 'salami slicing,' where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant and impactful new knowledge.