Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in a commendable overall score of -0.348. The institution exhibits exceptional strength and very low risk across a majority of indicators, particularly in preventing academic endogamy through minimal institutional self-citation and use of in-house journals, and in fostering sustainable impact through strong intellectual leadership. This solid integrity foundation supports its notable academic positioning, especially in Social Sciences, where it ranks among the top 25 institutions in the Netherlands according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. This performance strongly aligns with the institutional mission to provide the "best possible higher education." However, a moderate deviation in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations presents a single point of strategic concern. To fully uphold its commitment to excellence and prepare students for the "world of tomorrow," it is crucial to ensure that all collaborative practices are transparent and substantive. By proactively investigating this vulnerability while leveraging its many areas of strength, the university can further solidify its reputation for responsible, high-impact research and education.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.258, which marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.033. This indicates that the university shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers across the Netherlands. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility, dual appointments, or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a need to verify that these are not strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or instances of “affiliation shopping.” This indicator warrants a closer look to ensure all affiliations reflect genuine and substantial collaboration that aligns with the university's mission.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.259, the institution's performance is statistically normal and aligns almost perfectly with the national average of -0.277. This demonstrates that the risk level is as expected for its context and size, suggesting that existing quality control and supervision mechanisms are performing effectively within the national system. Retractions are complex events, and this alignment indicates that there is no evidence of systemic failure in pre-publication quality control when compared to peer institutions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.974 is exceptionally low, positioning it well below the national average of -0.383. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the national standard, points to a healthy practice of external validation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this very low rate confirms that the institution's work is well-integrated into the global scientific community, effectively avoiding the 'echo chambers' or endogamous impact inflation that can arise from disproportionately high internal citation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.341 indicates minimal risk, though it represents a slight increase compared to the national average of -0.494. This can be interpreted as residual noise in an environment that is otherwise very secure. While sporadic presence in discontinued journals may occur, this minor signal suggests that continued vigilance is beneficial. Ensuring researchers have the tools for due diligence in selecting dissemination channels will help completely avoid reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.972, the institution demonstrates significant institutional resilience, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.843. This shows that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is more prevalent in the country. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authored publications, the university successfully avoids patterns that could indicate author list inflation, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output and distinguishing its practices from environments where 'honorary' authorship may be more common.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.070 signals a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, which stands at 0.085. This excellent result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of dependency observed elsewhere. A negative gap is a strong sign of scientific maturity, suggesting that the research led directly by the institution has a higher impact than its overall collaborative output. This demonstrates that its scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, stemming from real internal capacity rather than a strategic reliance on external partners for impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, indicating a clear preventive isolation from the national risk dynamic (Z-score of 0.444). This extremely low score reflects an environment where a healthy balance between productivity and quality is maintained. By effectively preventing the emergence of extreme individual publication volumes, the university mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record and prioritizing meaningful contribution over sheer metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is even lower than the minimal national average of -0.245. This signifies a state of total operational silence on this indicator, reflecting an exemplary commitment to external validation. This practice ensures that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, which avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, thereby maximizing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.180, while low, points to an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.302. This suggests that while the overall risk is contained, the institution shows signals that warrant review before they escalate. A rate higher than the national standard, even if small, may indicate isolated instances of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to inflate productivity. A proactive review of publication practices is recommended to ensure all outputs contribute significant new knowledge and do not prioritize volume over substance.