University of Antwerp

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Antwerp demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 0.007 indicating a very low deviation from expected ethical standards. The institution exhibits exceptional control over key integrity areas, including retracted output, institutional self-citation, and publication in discontinued or institutional journals, often performing with greater rigor than the national standard. However, a cluster of medium-risk indicators related to authorship and affiliation patterns—specifically the rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, and hyperprolific authors, alongside a notable gap in impact leadership—suggests a systemic tendency toward practices that, while not critical, warrant strategic monitoring. These patterns contrast with the university's outstanding academic performance, as evidenced by its Top 3 national rankings in Belgium across diverse fields such as Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Business, Management and Accounting, and Chemistry, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of contributing "positively to society" with "academic freedom and responsibility," it is crucial to ensure these collaborative and productivity metrics reflect genuine scientific contribution rather than strategic inflation. By proactively addressing these areas of moderate exposure, the University of Antwerp can further solidify its reputation for excellence and ensure its significant societal contributions are built upon a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Antwerp presents a Z-score of 1.840, which is elevated compared to the national average of 1.319. This indicates that the institution is more prone to this specific risk signal than its peers within the country. This higher exposure suggests a need to examine the underlying drivers of this pattern. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” Given that the institution’s rate is noticeably above the national benchmark, it is advisable to review collaboration policies to ensure they promote genuine scientific partnership over the artificial amplification of institutional metrics.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.465, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of risk signals related to retracted publications, a figure that is consistent with the low-risk national environment (Z-score -0.227). This excellent result suggests that the university's quality control and supervision mechanisms are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high rate of retractions. This low-profile consistency aligns with responsible research practices, where any necessary corrections are handled appropriately without indicating recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the institution's scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution shows a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.384, which is lower than the national average of -0.241. This demonstrates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard, effectively avoiding the risks of scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, by maintaining a rate below its peers, the university mitigates any concern of creating 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous dynamics, ensuring its academic influence is validated by the broader global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University of Antwerp exhibits total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security, with a Z-score of -0.424, nearly identical to the national average of -0.470. This integrity synchrony indicates that the institution's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting reputable dissemination channels. This result confirms the absence of a systemic problem with channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the university from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.992 is moderately higher than the national average of 0.823, signaling a greater exposure to the risks associated with hyper-authorship. This pattern suggests that the university is more prone than its national peers to publishing works with extensive author lists. While in disciplines like high-energy physics extensive author lists are legitimate, a higher-than-average rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal warrants a closer look to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential for 'honorary' authorship practices that could compromise transparency.

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

With a Z-score of 0.649, the institution displays a wider gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of work where it holds a leadership role, compared to the national average of 0.393. This high exposure suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external partners than is typical for the country. A significant positive gap warns of a sustainability risk, where excellence metrics could result more from strategic positioning in collaborations than from structural internal capacity. This invites reflection on strengthening internal research programs to ensure that the institution's high impact is increasingly driven by its own intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of 0.389 is notably higher than the national average of 0.074, indicating a greater concentration of hyperprolific authors compared to its national context. This high exposure to risk signals warrants a review of authorship practices and workload distribution. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of 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.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution demonstrates an exemplary Z-score of -0.233, indicating a near-total absence of output in its own journals, a rate even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.186. This operational silence in this indicator is a strong positive signal. It confirms that the university avoids any potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party in the publication process. By relying on external, independent peer review, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation, maximizing its global visibility and reinforcing its commitment to transparent and unbiased evaluation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University of Antwerp shows a Z-score of -0.627, reflecting a very low incidence of redundant publications and aligning well with the low-risk national context (Z-score -0.240). This low-profile consistency demonstrates robust editorial standards and a research culture that values substantive contributions over volume. The absence of signals for this indicator suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units, or 'salami slicing,' is not a systemic issue. This reinforces the integrity of the university's research output, ensuring it contributes meaningful new knowledge rather than artificially inflating productivity metrics.