| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
3.280 | -0.033 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.540 | -0.277 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.425 | -0.383 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.475 | -0.494 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.877 | 0.843 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.039 | 0.085 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.012 | 0.444 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.245 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.205 | -0.302 |
The Open University Netherlands demonstrates a robust overall scientific integrity profile, reflected in a low global risk score of 0.210. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in preventing hyperprolific authorship, avoiding publication in discontinued journals, and maintaining independence from its own publication channels. It also shows commendable resilience by mitigating national risk trends related to hyper-authorship and impact dependency. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by critical vulnerabilities, most notably a significant alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, alongside medium-level risks in Retracted Output and Redundant Output. These specific issues require strategic attention as they could undermine the institution's mission to deliver "high-quality" and "socially relevant research." With recognized academic strengths in areas such as Psychology, Social Sciences, and Arts and Humanities, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, it is crucial that research practices fully align with this standard of excellence. Addressing the identified integrity risks, particularly those concerning authorship and affiliation strategies, will be essential to safeguard the institution's reputation and ensure its operational conduct authentically reflects its commitment to innovation and quality in higher education.
The institution presents a Z-score of 3.280, a figure that signals a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.033. This result places the institution as a significant outlier within a national context that shows minimal risk in this area. Such an atypical level of activity requires a deep integrity assessment. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping." The stark contrast with the national norm suggests that this is not a systemic practice in the country but a dynamic specific to the institution, making a review of its affiliation and authorship policies urgent.
With a Z-score of 0.540, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.277. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers across the country. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the national standard suggests that internal quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be less effective than they should be. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture could point to recurring methodological issues or a lack of rigorous supervision, warranting a qualitative verification by management to understand the root causes.
The institution's Z-score of -0.425 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.383, indicating a level of risk that is statistically normal for its context. A certain degree of self-citation is expected and reflects the natural continuity of established research lines. The observed low rate confirms that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community, effectively mitigating the risk of operating in an 'echo chamber' or creating endogamous impact inflation. This alignment demonstrates a healthy integration into the global research landscape.
The institution's Z-score of -0.475 demonstrates integrity synchrony with the national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.494. This total alignment in a very low-risk area signifies that both the institution and the country maintain maximum scientific security regarding publication venues. This result highlights excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding predatory or low-quality journals and protecting the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with such practices.
The institution exhibits a low-risk Z-score of -0.877, demonstrating institutional resilience against a medium-level risk trend observed at the national level (0.843). This suggests that the university's internal governance and control mechanisms act as an effective filter against the country's systemic risks. By maintaining a low rate of hyper-authorship, the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
With a low-risk Z-score of -0.039, the institution shows strong institutional resilience compared to the national average of 0.085, which indicates a medium-level risk. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The Open University's contained score suggests its scientific prestige is largely built on structural, internal capacity. This mitigates the sustainability risk of relying on exogenous impact and demonstrates a robust ability to lead research independently.
The institution's Z-score of -1.012 represents a state of preventive isolation from the national context, where a medium-level risk is observed (0.444). This stark contrast indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics present in its environment. The complete absence of signals for hyperprolific authorship points to a strong institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over the sheer volume of publications, effectively preventing imbalances that could lead to coercive authorship or other integrity risks.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is in near-perfect synchrony with the national average of -0.245, reflecting a shared commitment to minimizing this risk. This alignment in a very low-risk indicator shows that the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest by not over-relying on its in-house journals. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is crucial for maintaining global visibility and preventing the use of internal channels to bypass standard competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.205 indicates a moderate deviation from the national standard of -0.302. This suggests the center has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high value in this indicator alerts to the practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This tendency, which is not characteristic of the national environment, warrants a review to ensure that the pursuit of publication volume does not overshadow the goal of producing significant and coherent new knowledge.
