Budapest University of Technology and Economics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Budapest University of Technology and Economics (BME) demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in its overall risk score of 0.215. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for retracted publications, hyperprolific authorship, and impact dependency, often outperforming the national context and showcasing effective internal governance. These positive indicators are complemented by BME's outstanding academic leadership, as evidenced by its top national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings thematic areas such as Engineering, Mathematics, Chemistry, and Computer Science. However, the analysis also highlights areas requiring strategic attention, specifically the medium-risk signals in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, which are more pronounced than the national average. These vulnerabilities could potentially challenge the institution's mission to provide "quality education and scientific training" and achieve genuine innovation, as they risk prioritizing internal metrics over externally validated excellence. To fully align its operational practices with its prestigious mission, BME is encouraged to address these specific areas of exposure, thereby reinforcing its commitment to transparent, high-impact research and solidifying its role as a national and international leader.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.201, a value indicating low risk and contrasting sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.726. This demonstrates a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that BME's internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to affiliation strategies that are more prevalent across the country. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's controlled rate indicates that it is not exposed to the risk of strategic practices like “affiliation shopping” aimed at artificially inflating institutional credit, thereby maintaining a clear and transparent representation of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.400, the institution maintains a very low-risk profile that is even more favorable than the already low national average of -0.233. This result points to a commendable low-profile consistency, where the near absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly below the average is a strong positive signal. It suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms and supervisory processes prior to publication are functioning effectively, fostering a culture of methodological rigor that prevents systemic errors and upholds the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.389, a medium-risk value that is considerably higher than the national average of 0.310. This disparity reveals a high exposure to this risk factor, indicating the university is more prone to this behavior than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers'. It warns of a risk that the institution's academic influence may be inflated by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community, suggesting a need to foster greater external engagement and scrutiny.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution records a Z-score of -0.254, which is below the national average of -0.189, both within a low-risk range. This reflects a prudent profile, indicating that the university manages its publication processes with more rigor than the national standard. A low proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical sign of due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This result suggests that BME's researchers are well-informed and effectively avoid predatory or low-quality publishing venues, thus protecting the institution's reputation and ensuring its research output is channeled through credible and enduring platforms.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.935, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile, standing in positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.352. This suggests strong institutional resilience, where internal policies or academic culture appear to mitigate the systemic national trend towards inflated author lists. In fields outside of 'Big Science', high rates of hyper-authorship can dilute individual accountability. BME's low score indicates that its authorship practices are generally transparent and well-regulated, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship.

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

The institution has a Z-score of -1.034, a very low-risk value that signifies a strong and independent research capacity, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.826. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of external dependency observed elsewhere in the country. A low gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated by its own intellectual leadership, not merely a byproduct of participating in collaborations led by others. This is a powerful indicator of sustainable, endogenous research excellence and true innovation capacity.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.371 is in the very low-risk category, significantly better than the national low-risk average of -0.462. This finding shows a consistent, low-profile approach to research productivity that aligns with and surpasses the national standard. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the credibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. BME's very low score in this area is a positive sign that it fosters a healthy balance between quantity and quality, avoiding potential integrity risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 4.840, a medium-risk value that is exceptionally higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.703. This significant difference highlights a high exposure to the risks associated with in-house publishing. While institutional journals can be valuable for local dissemination, an excessive dependence on them, as suggested by this score, raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. It warns that a substantial portion of scientific production might be bypassing rigorous, independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 1.762, a medium-risk value that is notably higher than the national average of 0.409. This indicates that the university has a higher exposure to this risk compared to its national context. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing,' a practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This elevated rate serves as an alert that such practices may be distorting the scientific evidence produced by the institution and overburdening the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.