University St Kliment Ohridski in Bitola

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

University St Kliment Ohridski in Bitola presents a strong overall integrity profile, with a global score of 0.824, characterized by significant strengths in research ethics and notable areas for strategic improvement. The institution demonstrates an exemplary commitment to responsible research conduct, evidenced by very low-risk indicators for hyperprolific authorship, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals. It also effectively filters national trends in retractions, maintaining a low rate despite a high-risk environment. However, this solid foundation is critically undermined by an extremely high rate of publication in discontinued journals, a practice that directly conflicts with its mission to provide "quality in all segments." A secondary concern is a moderate dependency on external collaborations for research impact. The University's recognized strengths, as highlighted by SCImago Institutions Rankings in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting, Environmental Science, and Social Sciences, are put at risk by these integrity vulnerabilities. To fully realize its mission of being a recognizable, high-quality institution, it is imperative to address the channel selection for publications. By implementing targeted training and stricter vetting policies for journals, the University can protect its academic reputation, ensure its research quality is accurately reflected, and build a truly sustainable and independent scientific identity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University's Z-score for this indicator is -0.267, compared to the national average of -0.950. This represents a slight divergence from the national context, where such affiliations are less common. While the University's rate remains low, it shows signals of activity that are not prevalent across the rest of the country. Multiple affiliations can be a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, but this minor deviation suggests a pattern that, while not yet a risk, warrants observation to ensure it reflects genuine collaboration rather than early signs of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.118, the University maintains a low rate of retractions in a national context where the risk is significant (country Z-score: 0.911). This demonstrates the presence of an effective institutional filter, suggesting that the University's internal quality control mechanisms are successfully mitigating the systemic risks observed at the national level. A high rate of retractions can alert to a vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture, but in this case, the University acts as a firewall against problematic national practices, indicating that its pre-publication review and supervision processes are robust and aligned with responsible research conduct.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.545, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.733. This points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, the University's slightly higher rate compared to its peers suggests a minor tendency towards an 'echo chamber' dynamic. This is a subtle signal that, if it were to grow, could warn of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence is validated more by internal dynamics than by broader recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University's Z-score of 5.318 for output in discontinued journals is a critical alert, significantly amplifying the vulnerability already present in the national system (country Z-score: 1.348). This extremely high score indicates that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the University to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need to improve information literacy and due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Continuing this trend would directly contradict the institutional mission of quality and could lead to a significant waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-impact practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The University shows a Z-score of -0.534, indicating a low rate of hyper-authored publications, which contrasts favorably with the moderate-risk national environment (country Z-score: 0.363). This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a low score like this indicates that the University successfully promotes transparency and accountability in authorship, distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

With a Z-score of 2.084, the University's impact gap is slightly more controlled than the national average of 2.167. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution moderates a risk that is common throughout the country. A wide positive gap signals a sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. While the University's value is still in the medium-risk range, its ability to perform better than the national average indicates a partial capacity to generate impact from research where it exercises intellectual leadership, though strengthening this internal capacity remains a key strategic goal.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University demonstrates an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -1.413, significantly below the already very low national average of -1.166. This signals a total operational silence on this indicator, reflecting an institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer volume. The complete absence of hyperprolific authors—individuals with publication volumes challenging the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution—suggests that the University has strong safeguards against practices like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing,' thereby ensuring the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University's Z-score of -0.268 is in the very low-risk category, showcasing a clear preventive isolation from the moderate-risk dynamics observed nationally (country Z-score: 0.541). This indicates that the institution does not replicate the national tendency towards academic endogamy. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the University ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for global visibility and competitive validation. This practice mitigates the conflicts of interest that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party, reinforcing its commitment to objective quality standards.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -1.186, the University shows a near-total absence of redundant output, a profile that aligns with the low-risk national standard (country Z-score: -0.430). This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong adherence to ethical publication practices. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. The University's very low score confirms that its researchers prioritize the publication of significant, coherent studies over the division of work into minimal publishable units, thereby contributing robustly to the scientific record.