| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.249 | -0.033 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.155 | -0.277 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.036 | -0.383 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.424 | -0.494 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.005 | 0.843 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-2.340 | 0.085 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | 0.444 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.245 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.006 | -0.302 |
NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.244. The institution's performance is characterized by a remarkable capacity to insulate itself from national risk trends, particularly in areas such as hyper-authorship, dependency on external research leadership, and hyperprolific authors, where it shows exceptional control. The primary area requiring strategic attention is the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which presents a moderate deviation from the national standard. This profile of high integrity underpins the institution's recognized academic strengths, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings in key areas like Environmental Science, Business, Management and Accounting, and Social Sciences. The institution's mission, "We work together on world-wise innovation," is strongly supported by its demonstrated capacity for generating impact through internal leadership. However, the elevated risk in multiple affiliations could challenge this mission if not managed, as it may obscure the nature of genuine collaboration. To fully align its practices with its vision, the institution is encouraged to leverage its solid integrity framework to investigate and mitigate this specific risk, thereby ensuring its innovative contributions are both impactful and transparent.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.249, a significant contrast to the national average of -0.033. This result represents a moderate deviation from the national norm, indicating that the university shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with this practice than its peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the low-risk national context warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborative work.
With a Z-score of -0.155, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.277, although both figures remain in a low-risk category. This minor difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, highlighting signals of risk that, while not yet alarming, warrant review before they escalate. A rate higher than the global average, even if marginal, can alert to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This serves as a proactive call to reinforce pre-publication quality control mechanisms to ensure they remain robust and effective in preventing both unintentional errors and potential malpractice.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.036, which, while low, is higher than the national average of -0.383. This gap points to an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows signals that warrant closer monitoring before they grow. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this indicator warns of the potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics. It is advisable to encourage broader engagement with the global scientific community to ensure its work receives sufficient external scrutiny and validation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.424 is exceptionally low, slightly higher than the national average of -0.494 but still firmly in the very low-risk tier. This minimal signal can be interpreted as residual noise within an otherwise inert and healthy environment. The near-total absence of publications in discontinued journals is a strong indicator of excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice protects the institution from severe reputational risks and demonstrates a commitment to avoiding 'predatory' or low-quality publishing, ensuring research resources are invested wisely.
The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience with a Z-score of -1.005, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.843, which falls into a medium-risk category. This demonstrates that the university's internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate the systemic risks of authorship inflation prevalent in the country. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authorship, the institution effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby promoting greater individual accountability and transparency in its research outputs.
With a Z-score of -2.340, the institution shows a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country's average score is 0.085 (medium risk). This result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where institutional impact is often dependent on external collaboration. The very low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, stemming from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership rather than a strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 places it in a very low-risk category, showcasing a clear preventive isolation from the national context, which has a medium-risk average of 0.444. This strong negative result indicates the university does not replicate the risk dynamics related to extreme publication volumes seen elsewhere in the country. It points to a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes a balance between quantity and quality, successfully avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thus protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is nearly identical to the national average of -0.245, demonstrating a clear integrity synchrony with its environment. This total alignment reflects a shared national commitment to maximum scientific security in this area. By minimizing its dependence on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its commitment to competitive validation and global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.006 is higher than the national average of -0.302, although both are within the low-risk range. This difference signals an incipient vulnerability, suggesting the university shows early signals that warrant review before escalating. A high value in this indicator can alert to the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a practice known as 'salami slicing'. This finding encourages a proactive review of publication strategies to ensure the focus remains on presenting significant new knowledge rather than maximizing output volume.
