Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, with a low aggregate risk score of 0.078. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation and hyperprolific authorship, alongside a remarkable capacity to insulate itself from the high national rate of retracted publications, showcasing effective internal quality controls. Key areas for strategic attention are concentrated in a cluster of medium-risk indicators, including a tendency towards hyper-authorship, a notable gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, and a significant reliance on its own institutional journals. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a dominant national position, ranking first in Macedonia across numerous fields such as Veterinary, Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Medicine, and Engineering. However, the identified risks, particularly the dependency on external partners for impact and potential for academic endogamy, could challenge its mission to "achieve the European norms and standards" and become a truly autonomous, internationally recognized institution. To fully align its practices with its mission of excellence, the university is encouraged to foster greater intellectual leadership in collaborations and diversify its publication channels, thereby strengthening its global standing on the foundation of its clear domestic leadership.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.851 reflects a low risk level, though it marks a slight divergence from the national context, where the average Z-score is -0.950. This suggests the emergence of risk signals at the university that are not yet apparent in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor uptick warrants observation to ensure it represents healthy collaboration rather than early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.268, the university demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, especially when contrasted with the country's significant-risk average of 0.911. This performance indicates that the institution acts as an effective filter, successfully shielding itself from the systemic vulnerabilities affecting the national scientific landscape. While some retractions reflect honest error correction, a high national rate suggests widespread issues. The university's low score is a strong positive signal of robust pre-publication quality control and a resilient integrity culture that prevents the kind of recurring malpractice or methodological weakness evident elsewhere in the country.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score of -0.864 places it in the very low-risk category, consistent with the low-risk national average of -0.733. This demonstrates a healthy, low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate confirms that it avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. This practice underscores that the university's academic influence is built on broad external scrutiny and recognition by the global community, not on insular or endogamous dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.860, which, while indicating a medium risk, is notably lower than the national average of 1.348. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the university is successfully moderating a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's relative control in this area is positive, but the existing medium-risk signal indicates a continued need to enhance information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling work through media that fail to meet international ethical standards, thereby preventing reputational damage and wasted resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of 0.845, the institution shows a higher rate of hyper-authored publications compared to the national average of 0.363, even though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the university is more prone to this risk factor than its national peers. While extensive author lists are standard in "Big Science," their prevalence outside these contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This heightened signal warrants a review to distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and potential "honorary" authorship practices that could compromise transparency.

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

The university's Z-score of 2.518 is in the medium-risk range and is higher than the national average of 2.167. This high exposure suggests the institution is more susceptible than its peers to a wide gap where its overall impact is significantly greater than the impact of research it leads. This dynamic signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that its scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics stem from genuine internal capacity or from a positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.284 is in the very low-risk category, performing even better than the already low national average of -1.166. This signifies a state of total operational silence, with an absence of risk signals that is exemplary within its national context. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The university's exceptionally low score in this area is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between quantity and quality, reflecting an environment that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over pure metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of 0.877 is higher than the national average of 0.541, placing it in a position of high exposure to this medium-risk indicator. This suggests the institution is more prone than its national counterparts to publishing in its own journals. While in-house journals can be valuable for local dissemination, excessive dependence on them raises conflict-of-interest concerns, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This high value warns of a risk of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and creating "fast tracks" to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is -0.259, which, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.430. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows early signals of this risk that warrant review before they escalate. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or "salami slicing," a practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. While the current level is low, this slight uptick compared to the national baseline suggests that monitoring this practice is prudent to ensure research contributions remain significant and do not overburden the scientific review system.