Fontys University of Applied Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Fontys University of Applied Sciences presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.086 that indicates strong governance. The institution demonstrates exceptional control over most risk indicators, particularly in authorship practices, impact sustainability, and publication channel selection, where it significantly outperforms national averages. This operational excellence supports its notable research contributions in key thematic areas identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings, including Business, Management and Accounting, Psychology, and Social Sciences. However, this strong profile is critically undermined by a single, severe anomaly in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations. This specific vulnerability poses a direct reputational threat that could challenge the institution's commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility, potentially compromising the credibility of its otherwise sound research. The global recommendation is to leverage the institution's clear strengths in governance to conduct a focused audit on its affiliation policies, thereby resolving this isolated issue and ensuring its practices fully align with its commitment to the highest standards of scientific integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 3.871, a value that indicates a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.033. This marked divergence suggests an institutional practice that is highly atypical for the Dutch research environment, requiring a deep integrity assessment. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, such a disproportionately high rate signals a critical risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.” The intensity of this indicator warrants an urgent review of affiliation policies to ensure that they are driven by genuine scientific collaboration rather than metric-oriented incentives.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.315, the institution's performance is in close alignment with the national average of -0.277. This correspondence indicates a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context and size. The low incidence of retractions suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication are generally effective. This result is consistent with a culture of responsible supervision where any necessary corrections are handled appropriately, without signaling systemic failures in methodological rigor or research integrity.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.526 is notably lower than the national average of -0.383, reflecting a prudent and rigorous profile in its citation practices. This demonstrates a healthier reliance on external validation compared to its national peers. By avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from disproportionately high self-citation, the institution ensures its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics. This result suggests strong integration into international research networks and a commitment to objective impact assessment.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.450 shows almost perfect integrity synchrony with the national average of -0.494. This total alignment reflects a shared environment of maximum scientific security, where publications in discontinued or predatory journals are effectively non-existent. This indicates that the institution, like its national peers, exercises excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, thereby protecting its research from reputational risks and ensuring resources are invested in high-quality, ethically sound publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.692, a figure that points to significant institutional resilience, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.843. While the Dutch system shows a moderate tendency towards hyper-authorship, the institution acts as an effective filter against this trend. This suggests that its internal control mechanisms successfully mitigate the risk of author list inflation, promoting transparency and individual accountability. The data indicates a clear distinction between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, reinforcing the integrity of its research attributions.

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

With a Z-score of -0.930, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from the risk of impact dependency, a vulnerability present in the national context (Z-score of 0.085). This result is a strong indicator of scientific autonomy and sustainability. It suggests that the institution's prestige is built upon genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on the impact generated by external collaborators. This structural strength ensures that its excellence metrics are a true reflection of its own research capabilities.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, placing it in preventive isolation from the national trend, which shows a moderate risk level (Z-score of 0.444). This complete disconnection from national risk dynamics indicates a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity of publications. The absence of hyperprolific authors suggests that risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful contribution are effectively controlled, ensuring the integrity of the scientific record and a sustainable research environment for its academics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close synchrony with the national average of -0.245, demonstrating full alignment with a national environment that prioritizes external validation. The very low rate of publication in its own journals indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review, which mitigates conflicts of interest and avoids academic endogamy. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, confirming that its output competes successfully in standard, competitive scientific channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.262, the institution's rate of redundant output is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.302. This indicates that the practice of fragmenting studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity is not a concern. The institution's publication patterns appear to prioritize the communication of significant new knowledge over the maximization of output volume, thereby contributing to a healthier and more efficient scientific ecosystem.