| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.557 | -0.044 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.080 | -0.258 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
3.499 | 1.259 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.364 | -0.134 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.767 | 0.628 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.373 | 0.917 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.446 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.734 | 0.411 |
Daugavpils University presents a profile of notable strengths in scientific integrity, with an overall risk score of 0.191 indicating a generally healthy research environment. The institution demonstrates exemplary control over authorship practices, showing very low risk in hyperprolific authors and output in institutional journals, and effectively mitigates national trends toward hyper-authorship and impact dependency. These strengths are foundational to its mission to be a "core promoter of development." The university's academic excellence is further evidenced by its strong national standing in key thematic areas, including a Top 3 position in Arts and Humanities and Top 5 rankings in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, and Social Sciences, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive outlook is challenged by a significant risk in institutional self-citation and medium-level risks in multiple affiliations, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output. These vulnerabilities, particularly the tendency towards an academic 'echo chamber,' could undermine the university's motto, "Scientia Vinces" (Through knowledge you win), as true victory in knowledge requires external validation, not just internal reinforcement. To fully align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university focuses on strategies that enhance the external validation and global dissemination of its research, thereby ensuring its knowledge genuinely contributes to and is recognized by the broader society.
The university's Z-score of 1.557 for this indicator marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.044, suggesting a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with affiliations than its peers. This indicates a pattern of multiple affiliations that stands out within the Latvian context. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. It is advisable to review affiliation policies to ensure they consistently reflect genuine, substantive collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.
With a Z-score of -0.080, the institution's rate of retracted output is low but slightly higher than the national average of -0.258, signaling an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall rate is not alarming, this subtle difference suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may warrant a proactive review. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision, a rate that begins to rise above the norm, even at low levels, should prompt an examination of methodological rigor to ensure that any potential for systemic error is addressed before it can escalate.
This indicator presents a significant area for strategic review, as the university's Z-score of 3.499 is substantially higher than the national average of 1.259. This suggests the institution is amplifying a vulnerability already present in the national system. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research, this disproportionately high rate warns of potential scientific isolation and the risk of an 'echo chamber.' Such a pattern can lead to endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the global community, potentially undermining the external credibility of its research.
The university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk compared to its national counterparts, with a Z-score of 0.364 against a country average of -0.134. This moderate deviation suggests that institutional authors may be more frequently selecting publication channels that do not meet international standards. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in dissemination. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and indicates an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling valuable work into 'predatory' or low-quality outlets.
Daugavpils University demonstrates strong institutional resilience in this area. Its Z-score of -0.767 effectively counteracts the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.628), indicating that its internal governance and control mechanisms are successfully mitigating systemic risks related to authorship. This performance suggests the institution's culture promotes a clear distinction between necessary, large-scale collaboration and the risk of author list inflation, thereby upholding individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The institution exhibits commendable resilience and scientific autonomy, with a Z-score of -0.373 that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.917. This result indicates that, unlike the national trend, the university's research impact is not overly dependent on external partners but is structurally generated by its own internal capacity. This demonstrates that the university exercises intellectual leadership within its collaborations, ensuring its excellence metrics are a true and sustainable reflection of its own scientific strength.
The institution maintains an exemplary low-risk profile in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is well below the already low national average of -0.446. This signals a complete absence of risk related to hyperprolific authors and aligns with a national standard of responsible publication volumes. This result points to a healthy institutional culture that balances productivity with quality, effectively discouraging practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The university shows a strong commitment to external validation by effectively isolating itself from national risk dynamics in this area. Its Z-score of -0.268 stands in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 0.242, indicating that the institution does not replicate the trend of relying on in-house journals. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own publication channels, the university successfully mitigates the risk of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and achieves broader global visibility.
The university's Z-score of 0.734 indicates a higher exposure to this risk factor when compared to the national average of 0.411. This suggests the institution is more prone to showing alert signals for redundant publications. While citing previous work is a necessary part of cumulative science, this elevated score warns of the potential practice of fragmenting coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic, known as 'salami slicing,' can distort the scientific evidence base and suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, holistic contributions over sheer volume.
