University of Wisconsin, Green Bay

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Wisconsin, Green Bay presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.029 indicating a balance between areas of exceptional strength and specific, significant vulnerabilities. The institution demonstrates outstanding performance in maintaining very low-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Discontinued Journals, Hyperprolific Authors, and Output in Institutional Journals, signaling a robust culture of external validation and ethical rigor. However, this is contrasted by a significant alert in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) and medium-level risks in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Gap between total and leadership-driven impact. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly noted in areas such as Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. The identified risk of redundant publication directly challenges the university's mission to provide "effective service," as it prioritizes publication volume over substantive scientific contribution. To fully align its practices with its stated character and purpose, it is recommended that the institution undertake a targeted review of its publication and authorship policies, focusing on mitigating data fragmentation to ensure its research output is a true reflection of academic excellence and integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.943, which contrasts with the national average of -0.514. This moderate deviation suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The observed divergence from the national trend warrants a review to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and not primarily for "affiliation shopping," thereby safeguarding the institution's academic reputation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.174, the institution's performance is in close alignment with the national average of -0.126, reflecting a state of statistical normality. This indicates that the level of risk associated with retracted publications is as expected for its context. Retractions are complex events, and a low, stable rate suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively and are consistent with the standards observed across the country.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution demonstrates an exceptionally strong performance with a Z-score of -1.151, significantly lower than the national average of -0.566. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses the already low national standard, is a clear indicator of robust external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms the institution avoids scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' It suggests the institution's academic influence is built on broad recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.480 is slightly below the national average of -0.415, indicating a state of total operational silence on this risk indicator. This performance, which is even better than the low-risk national benchmark, points to exemplary due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It shows a strong institutional capacity to avoid predatory or low-quality journals, thereby preventing the waste of resources and protecting its scientific output from severe reputational risks.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.397, the institution exhibits a low-risk profile, standing in positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.594. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks that are more prevalent in the country. This low rate suggests a healthy approach to authorship, effectively preventing practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships and ensuring that credit is assigned with transparency and accountability.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of 1.261, notably higher than the national average of 0.284, indicating high exposure to this particular risk. Although both the institution and the country operate at a medium-risk level, the university is more prone to this alert. A wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that a significant portion of its scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being driven by its own structural capacity. This invites a strategic reflection on whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capabilities or from collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, far below the national average of -0.275. This low-profile consistency highlights a commendable institutional culture that prioritizes substance over sheer volume. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful contribution. This very low score indicates the institution effectively avoids the risks of coercive authorship or metric-driven behaviors, fostering a healthy balance between quantity and quality in its research environment.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.220. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared commitment to an environment of maximum scientific security. By minimizing reliance on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice demonstrates a strong preference for independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels and achieves global visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The institution presents a critical alert with a Z-score of 4.142, a figure that represents a significant risk accentuation compared to the moderate national average of 0.027. This score indicates that the university is amplifying a vulnerability present in the national system to a critical degree. Such a high value is a strong warning sign of 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a coherent study 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. An urgent and thorough review of publication practices is required to address this issue, which prioritizes volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.