Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.285. The institution exhibits exceptional performance across the majority of integrity indicators, often surpassing national benchmarks and showcasing strong internal governance that effectively mitigates systemic risks present in its environment. Key strengths are evident in its very low rates of hyperprolific authorship, retracted output, and redundant publications, alongside a resilient capacity to build impact based on its own intellectual leadership. This solid foundation is complemented by strong national rankings in several key thematic areas, including Energy, Environmental Science, Medicine, and Business, Management and Accounting, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This commitment to research quality directly supports the university's mission to educate "skilled and committed professionals" and generate "innovative and applicable knowledge." The only area requiring strategic attention is a moderate deviation in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations. To fully align with its mission of being a "key partner" built on trust and transparency, it is recommended that the institution reviews the drivers of this indicator to ensure all affiliations represent genuine, substantive collaborations, thereby safeguarding its well-established reputation for excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.728, which contrasts with the national average of -0.033. This moderate deviation indicates that 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, the notable difference compared to the national standard suggests a need for internal review. It is crucial to ascertain whether this pattern reflects a thriving collaborative network or signals strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," which could dilute the perceived value of its partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing even better than the national average of -0.277. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with a low-risk national standard, is a strong positive indicator. It suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. This performance signifies a healthy integrity culture and responsible supervision, successfully preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might otherwise indicate.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.540, a figure that reflects a more rigorous standard than the national average of -0.383. This prudent profile demonstrates that the university manages its citation practices with greater control than its peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but by maintaining a rate below the national norm, the institution effectively avoids the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This result suggests its academic influence is validated by the global community rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics, reinforcing the external credibility of its research lines.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.482, achieving near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.494. This integrity synchrony points to a shared environment of maximum scientific security, where publishing in unreliable venues is virtually non-existent. This performance highlights excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution effectively protects its resources and reputation from the severe risks associated with 'predatory' practices, demonstrating strong information literacy among its researchers.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.190 stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.843, showcasing remarkable institutional resilience. While the national context shows a moderate tendency towards hyper-authorship, the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate this systemic risk. This indicates a culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship practices. By maintaining low levels of hyper-authorship, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency, ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful intellectual contributions.

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

With a Z-score of -0.050, the institution demonstrates a minimal gap between its overall and led-by-author impact, a sign of strength when compared to the national average of 0.085. This institutional resilience suggests that, unlike the national trend, its scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. The low value indicates that its high-impact research is a result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, not merely strategic positioning in collaborations. This points to a sustainable model of excellence, where prestige is structural and endogenous.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, marking a clear preventive isolation from the national trend, which sits at a moderate-risk score of 0.444. This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By effectively curbing extreme individual publication volumes, the institution signals a strong focus on quality over quantity. This proactive stance mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record and fostering a healthier research culture.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is fully aligned with the national average of -0.245, reflecting an integrity synchrony within an environment of maximum scientific security. This shared commitment to publishing in external venues is a sign of robust academic practice. By avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the university circumvents potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution records a Z-score of -0.567, indicating a very low incidence of redundant output and outperforming the already low national average of -0.302. This low-profile consistency demonstrates a strong commitment to producing substantive research. The absence of this risk signal suggests that the university's researchers prioritize the publication of significant new knowledge over artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units. This approach respects the scientific evidence base and the integrity of the peer-review system.