| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.426 | -0.033 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.428 | -0.277 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.715 | -0.383 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.001 | -0.494 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.690 | 0.843 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.557 | 0.085 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.444 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.245 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.123 | -0.302 |
HAN University of Applied Sciences demonstrates a robust overall integrity profile, reflected in a low aggregate risk score of -0.258. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, indicating strong quality control and a culture that prioritizes substantive scientific contribution. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by two areas of concern: a moderate risk in the rate of multiple affiliations and, more critically, in the rate of output in discontinued journals, which deviates significantly from the national standard. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds strong national positions in Medicine (Top 15), Psychology (Top 15), Arts and Humanities (Top 20), and Social Sciences (Top 20). These areas of academic strength could be undermined if the identified risks are not addressed. The institutional mission to provide "education of an outstanding quality" and make "innovative contributions" is directly challenged by publication in low-quality channels and affiliation practices that could be perceived as merely strategic. To fully align its operational practices with its stated mission, the university is advised to leverage its clear strengths in research governance to develop targeted policies that mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby safeguarding its reputation and ensuring its contributions are both innovative and impactful.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.426, a notable contrast to the national average of -0.033. This moderate deviation suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to affiliation than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate warrants a review of internal policies. The data signals a potential vulnerability where affiliations might be used strategically to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” a practice that could dilute the perceived value of the university's collaborative efforts if not managed with full transparency.
With a Z-score of -0.428, the institution operates well within the low-risk national environment (Z-score of -0.277), demonstrating low-profile consistency in its quality assurance. This absence of risk signals indicates that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning effectively. Retractions can be complex, but such a low rate suggests that the institution fosters a strong integrity culture and responsible supervision, successfully preventing the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might imply. This performance is a testament to the institution's commitment to methodological rigor.
The institution's Z-score of -0.715 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.383, reflecting a prudent profile in its citation practices. This indicates that the university manages its processes with more rigor than the national standard, effectively avoiding the risks of scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this low value demonstrates a healthy reliance on external scrutiny and integration within the global academic community. It confirms that the institution's academic influence is driven by broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal 'echo chambers' or endogamous validation dynamics.
A Z-score of 0.001 for the institution marks a critical monitoring alert, as it represents an unusual risk level when compared to the very low-risk national standard of -0.494. This finding suggests an urgent need to review the causes behind this discrepancy. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific production may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling a need for enhanced information literacy to prevent the waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.690, which is substantially lower than the national average of 0.843. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate the systemic risks related to authorship that are more prevalent at the country level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' this low score indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of author list inflation. This control helps maintain individual accountability and transparency, preventing the dilution of credit through 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -0.557, the institution performs significantly better than the national average of 0.085, showcasing institutional resilience in building internal research capacity. A wide positive gap can signal a risk where prestige is dependent on external partners. However, this low score suggests that the university's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, resulting from genuine internal capacity rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a healthy and autonomous research ecosystem capable of driving its own high-impact work.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.444. This reflects a state of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors indicates a culture that prioritizes quality over quantity, effectively avoiding the risks of coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or authorship assignment without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.245, demonstrating integrity synchrony with an environment of maximum scientific security. This alignment shows a shared commitment to avoiding the potential conflicts of interest that arise when an institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. By minimizing reliance on in-house journals, the university ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances global visibility and confirms that its research is validated through standard competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.
The institution's Z-score of -0.123, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.302. This small difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate 'salami slicing,' where a study is fragmented into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. Although the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests that monitoring is needed to ensure institutional practices continue to prioritize the generation of significant new knowledge over the distortion of the scientific evidence base for metric-driven gains.
