| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.442 | -0.442 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | -0.296 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.262 | 1.262 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.173 | 0.173 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.540 | 2.540 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.200 | 2.200 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
1.152 | 1.152 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.116 | 1.116 |
The University of Montenegro presents a scientific integrity profile that is in perfect synchrony with the national landscape, reflecting both the strengths and systemic vulnerabilities of the Montenegrin research environment. With an overall risk score of 0.346, the institution demonstrates a moderate risk profile, characterized by strong performance in areas such as a very low rate of publication in institutional journals and low rates of retractions and multiple affiliations. However, this is counterbalanced by a significant risk in hyper-authored output and medium-level risks related to institutional self-citation, dependency on external leadership for impact, and practices that may prioritize publication volume over substance, such as hyperprolificity and redundant output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a dominant national position, ranking first in Montenegro across numerous fields, with particularly strong regional standings in Energy, Engineering, and Computer Science. This leadership position underscores the importance of addressing the identified risks, as they directly challenge the institution's mission to achieve "excellence in science" and foster "socially responsible" graduates. Practices that could inflate authorship or impact metrics without genuine substance threaten the credibility of its achievements and the sustainability of its development. A strategic focus on strengthening authorship policies and promoting a culture of quality over quantity is therefore recommended to mitigate these systemic risks, solidify its national leadership, and enhance its international reputation for genuine scientific excellence.
The University of Montenegro's Z-score for this indicator is -0.442, a value identical to the national average for Montenegro. This perfect alignment at a low-risk level indicates statistical normality, suggesting that the institution's collaborative patterns are as expected for its context and size. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used strategically to inflate institutional credit, the current low rate suggests that the university's engagement in partnerships is legitimate and does not present an integrity risk.
With a Z-score of -0.296, the institution's rate of retracted output is low and perfectly mirrors the national standard. This demonstrates statistical normality, indicating that the university's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively within its national context. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes signifying responsible supervision in correcting honest errors, and the current low score confirms the absence of signals suggesting systemic failures in methodological rigor or integrity culture.
The university exhibits a medium risk level for institutional self-citation with a Z-score of 1.262, a figure that is identical to the national average. This points to a systemic pattern, likely reflecting shared academic practices or evaluation pressures at a national level. While a certain degree of self-citation is natural in developing established research lines, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution's work may be validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice carries the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence is magnified by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
With a Z-score of 0.173, the institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is at a medium risk level, perfectly matching the national trend. This alignment suggests a systemic issue within the national research environment regarding the selection of publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence. It indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
The institution shows a significant risk in hyper-authored output, with a Z-score of 2.540 that is identical to the national figure. This indicates that the university is immersed in a generalized and critical risk dynamic that is standard for the country. In fields outside of 'Big Science' where extensive author lists are structurally necessary, such a high rate can signal author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This serves as a critical alert to distinguish between legitimate massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.
The university's Z-score of 2.200 indicates a medium-risk gap between its overall publication impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role. This value mirrors the national average, suggesting a systemic pattern of research dependency across the country. A wide positive gap, where global impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. It suggests that scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether the institution's excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
A medium risk level is observed for hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of 1.152 that is consistent with the national average. This suggests a systemic pattern where high individual publication volumes are a common feature of the national research culture. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes 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 the integrity of the scientific record.
The university demonstrates a very low risk regarding output in its own journals, with a Z-score of -0.268 that is perfectly aligned with the national environment. This signifies integrity synchrony and a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security in this domain. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its research is validated through independent external peer review, thereby strengthening its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's rate of redundant output presents a medium risk, with a Z-score of 1.116 that is consistent with the national scientific landscape. This alignment suggests a systemic pattern in publication practices across the country. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This behavior not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
