| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.060 | -0.033 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.334 | -0.277 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.789 | -0.383 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.334 | -0.494 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.518 | 0.843 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.290 | 0.085 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.444 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.245 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.048 | -0.302 |
The Hogeschool van Amsterdam demonstrates a solid overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a global risk score of -0.278. This indicates a robust foundation with specific, manageable areas for strategic enhancement. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in its own journals, showcasing a culture of external validation and responsible authorship. However, moderate risk signals are present in the rates of multiple affiliations, redundant output, and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its self-led projects. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds strong national positions in key areas such as Business, Management and Accounting (14th), Arts and Humanities (15th), Medicine (15th), and Social Sciences (15th). These areas of academic excellence must be safeguarded by addressing the identified integrity risks. The institution's mission to "enable innovation in the professional sector and community" is directly challenged by risks like redundant output, which prioritizes volume over meaningful discovery, and by an impact gap that questions the sustainability of its internal innovation leadership. To fully align its practices with its mission, the institution is encouraged to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to refine its policies on affiliation transparency and publication strategy, thereby ensuring its contributions are not only numerous but also structurally sound and genuinely innovative.
The institution's Z-score of 1.060 for this indicator shows a moderate deviation from the national standard, which sits at a low-risk Z-score of -0.033. This suggests the center is more sensitive to risk factors related to affiliation practices than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the higher rate here warrants a review to ensure transparency and substance. This divergence from the national norm could be interpreted as a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit or a pattern of “affiliation shopping,” making it essential to verify that all declared affiliations correspond to significant and active collaborations.
With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile, managing its pre-publication processes with slightly more rigor than the national standard (Z-score -0.277). This very low rate indicates that quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively. Retractions are complex events, and this result suggests that when they do occur, they are more likely a sign of responsible supervision and the honest correction of errors rather than an indicator of systemic failure or recurring malpractice. The institution’s performance here points to a healthy and resilient integrity culture.
The institution shows low-profile consistency in this area, with an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.789 that aligns with the secure national environment (Z-score -0.383). This near-total absence of risk signals confirms that the institution is not operating in a scientific 'echo chamber' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this result strongly indicates that the institution's academic influence is being validated externally by the global community, free from any distortion caused by internal dynamics.
In a national context where this risk is almost non-existent (country Z-score -0.494), the institution's Z-score of -0.334 represents a form of residual noise. Although the risk is minimal, this score indicates the institution is among the first to show any signal, however faint, in an otherwise inert environment. Sporadic presence in such journals can be unintentional, but this slight signal serves as a reminder for the need for continuous due diligence in selecting dissemination channels to avoid any reputational risk associated with predatory or low-quality publishing.
The institution displays notable institutional resilience, acting as an effective filter against national trends. While the country shows a medium risk for hyper-authorship (Z-score 0.843), the institution maintains a low-risk profile with a Z-score of -0.518. This suggests that its internal governance and control mechanisms successfully mitigate the systemic risks present in its environment. The data indicates a strong institutional culture that distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability.
The institution exhibits high exposure to this risk, with a Z-score of 0.290 that is significantly more pronounced than the national average of 0.085. This wider-than-average gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more dependent on external partners than on its own structural capacity. A high value here signals a potential sustainability risk, inviting reflection on whether its excellent impact metrics are the result of genuine internal capabilities or strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
A clear case of preventive isolation is observed, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics present in its environment. The national context shows a medium risk for hyperprolific authors (Z-score 0.444), whereas the institution records an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413. This environmental disconnection demonstrates that its internal governance is independent and effective, successfully preventing potential imbalances between quantity and quality. The result indicates a culture that discourages practices such as coercive authorship or assigning credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's practices demonstrate integrity synchrony, showing total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security. Its Z-score of -0.268 is statistically identical to the country's score of -0.245, reflecting a complete absence of risk signals. This indicates a strong commitment to independent, external peer review and a clear avoidance of academic endogamy. By not relying on in-house journals, which can present conflicts of interest, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation and achieves global visibility.
A moderate deviation is noted in this indicator, as the institution shows greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. Its Z-score of 0.048, which signals a medium risk, stands in contrast to the low-risk national average of -0.302. This alert suggests a potential tendency to fragment coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice, known as 'salami slicing,' can distort the scientific evidence and overburdens the review system, warranting a review to ensure that the focus remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than maximizing output volume.
