| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.277 | -0.320 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.887 | -0.027 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.379 | -0.077 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.011 | 0.028 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.557 | 0.532 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.441 | 0.730 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.128 | -0.556 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 1.693 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.667 | -0.435 |
Mykolo Romerio Universitetas presents a profile of notable strengths in research integrity alongside specific, critical vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall integrity score of 0.468, the institution demonstrates excellent control in areas such as avoiding academic endogamy, with very low rates of output in institutional journals and redundant publications. However, this is contrasted by a significant-risk rating for retracted output and medium-risk exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and concentrating productivity in hyperprolific authors. These weaknesses directly challenge the University's mission to "promote sustainable progress" and "educate an academic society," as lapses in quality control and due diligence undermine the long-term credibility and impact of its research. The institution's strong academic standing, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings as a top national performer in key areas like Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Business, Management and Accounting; and Psychology, provides a solid foundation. To fully align its operational practices with its mission, the University should leverage these strengths to implement targeted quality assurance and training initiatives, thereby transforming its identified risks into opportunities for leadership in scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.277 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.320, indicating a minor but noticeable signal of risk activity. This suggests an incipient vulnerability that, while currently low, warrants monitoring before it escalates. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight upward trend compared to the national baseline could be an early indicator of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping,” a practice that should be reviewed to ensure all affiliations are substantive.
A severe discrepancy exists between the institution's significant-risk Z-score of 0.887 and the country's low-risk score of -0.027. This atypical level of risk activity is a critical anomaly that requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate so far above the national average alerts to a serious vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. It strongly 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.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile in its citation practices, with a Z-score of -0.379, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.077. This indicates that the University manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively avoiding the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This low rate of institutional self-citation suggests that the institution's academic influence is healthily validated by the broader global community rather than being artificially inflated by internal dynamics.
With a Z-score of 1.011, the institution shows a much higher propensity to publish in discontinued journals compared to the national average of 0.028. This high exposure indicates that the center is more prone to this risk than its environment. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it suggests a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution displays notable resilience against a risk that is more prevalent nationally, with its low-risk Z-score of -0.557 contrasting with the country's medium-risk score of 0.532. This suggests that the University's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present in its environment. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored output, the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby upholding transparency and individual accountability.
The institution shows differentiated management of its research impact, with a Z-score of 0.441 that is significantly lower than the national average of 0.730. This indicates that the University effectively moderates a risk that is more common across the country. A lower gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is less dependent on external partners and more reflective of its own structural capacity. This reflects a healthier balance where excellence metrics are more closely tied to real internal capacity and the exercise of intellectual leadership within collaborations.
A moderate deviation is observed, as the institution's medium-risk Z-score of 1.128 indicates greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers, who have a low-risk average of -0.556. This unusual risk level for the national standard requires a review of its causes. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific record integrity.
The institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends, with a very low Z-score of -0.268, in stark contrast to the country's medium-risk score of 1.693. This shows that the center does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the University effectively mitigates conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and is instead validated through independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility.
The institution exhibits low-profile consistency with national standards, as its very low Z-score of -0.667 confirms an absence of risk signals in this area, aligning with the country's low-risk average of -0.435. This indicates a strong institutional focus on producing substantive work rather than engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to significant new knowledge over volume upholds the integrity of the scientific record and prevents overburdening the peer review system.
