The Hague University of Applied Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Hague University of Applied Sciences demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.301 that indicates a performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its capacity for independent intellectual leadership, its effective controls against hyper-authorship and hyper-prolificacy, and its diligent selection of publication venues. These areas show a commendable disconnection from medium-risk trends observed at the national level. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's strongest thematic areas include Engineering (ranked 14th nationally), along with Business, Management and Accounting, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, and Social Sciences (all ranked 16th). The only significant point of attention is a moderate deviation in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which exceeds the national benchmark. Although the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, these findings directly support the universal academic goals of achieving research excellence and upholding social responsibility. The identified risk, while isolated, could undermine perceptions of institutional credit and transparency, values inherent to any mission of excellence. The recommended strategy is to leverage the institution's clear strengths in research governance to investigate and moderate the affiliation practices, thereby ensuring its operational integrity fully aligns with its strong academic standing.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.475, which contrasts with the national average of -0.033. This moderate deviation from the national standard suggests the university is more exposed to this particular risk factor than its peers. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, this score warrants a review of internal policies. A disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," where researchers leverage multiple institutional names to maximize visibility or funding opportunities. It is advisable to analyze the nature of these affiliations to ensure they reflect substantive partnerships rather than administrative conveniences.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.193, the institution's performance is within a low-risk threshold, though it indicates a slightly higher incidence compared to the national average of -0.277. This subtle difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible supervision in correcting errors, a rate that begins to creep above the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be under strain. This signal serves as a proactive opportunity to reinforce methodological rigor and review processes to prevent potential systemic issues from escalating.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.092, a low-risk value that is nonetheless higher than the national average of -0.383. This gap suggests an incipient vulnerability, where internal citation patterns are more pronounced than in the broader national context. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this signal warns of a potential tendency towards an 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. To mitigate the risk of endogamous impact inflation, the institution should encourage broader engagement with the global academic community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution demonstrates exceptional performance with a Z-score of -0.457, showing strong integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a score of -0.494. This alignment in a very low-risk area indicates that the institution's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice is crucial as it avoids channeling scientific production through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting the university from severe reputational risks and ensuring resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality publications.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.619, the institution exhibits a low-risk profile that demonstrates significant institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national average of 0.843, which falls into the medium-risk category. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks present elsewhere in the country. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authorship, the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.607, a very low-risk value that signals a remarkable preventive isolation from the national trend (Z-score of 0.085). This result indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where scientific prestige can often be dependent on external partners. A very low score in this indicator is a sign of high sustainability, suggesting that the university's scientific impact is structural and derives from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in the very low-risk category, showcasing a preventive isolation from the national context, where the average score is 0.444 (medium risk). This excellent result suggests the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics common in its environment. The absence of extremely high individual publication volumes indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation. This focus on meaningful contribution over sheer metrics reinforces the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates total operational silence in this indicator, performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.245. This absence of risk signals, even below the national standard, is a strong positive sign. It shows a clear commitment to seeking independent external peer review for its research, thus avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. By prioritizing global dissemination channels over in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation and maximizes its international visibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.312 is almost identical to the national average of -0.302, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is low and as expected for its context, reflecting that its practices are aligned with national standards. This shows that the institution's researchers appropriately build upon previous work for cumulative knowledge without engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting a single study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This responsible approach helps maintain the integrity of the scientific evidence base.