Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences presents a robust and largely positive scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.007 indicating a performance that is well-aligned with expected standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining ethical publication practices, showing very low risk in areas such as output in discontinued journals, reliance on institutional journals, and redundant publications. However, this strong foundation is contrasted by a critical alert in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is significantly elevated above the national average and requires immediate strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's key research strengths are concentrated in areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Environmental Science, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Psychology. As the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, we assess these findings against the universal academic goals of excellence and social responsibility. The identified risk in affiliation practices could potentially undermine the credibility of its research contributions and institutional collaborations, creating a perception that contradicts the pursuit of genuine excellence. It is therefore recommended that the university leverages its clear strengths in research integrity to investigate and implement governance policies that clarify and regulate affiliation practices, ensuring its operational conduct fully supports its academic achievements and reputation.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 3.372 in this indicator, a value that places it at a significant risk level and starkly contrasts with the national average of 0.802. This discrepancy suggests that the university not only participates in the national trend of multiple affiliations but actively amplifies it, creating a vulnerability that requires examination. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, such a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This pattern accentuates a risk present in the national system, warranting an internal review to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent research contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.324, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile that is even more rigorous than the low-risk national standard of -0.255. This favorable result indicates that the university's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are highly effective. Retractions can sometimes result from the honest correction of errors, but this institution's exceptionally low rate suggests its systemic safeguards against methodological flaws or potential malpractice are robust. This performance points to a strong integrity culture where supervision and internal review processes successfully mitigate risks before they escalate to public correction.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is -0.069, which, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.192. This minor elevation points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. A certain degree of self-citation is natural and reflects the development of coherent research lines. However, this subtle deviation from the national norm serves as a signal to ensure that this practice does not evolve into scientific isolation or an 'echo chamber' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. Proactive observation is recommended to prevent any risk of endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -0.499, indicating a total absence of risk signals and surpassing the already very low national average of -0.435. This result reflects an outstanding level of due diligence in the selection of publication venues. It confirms that the institution's researchers are effectively avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This operational silence on a key risk indicator protects the university from reputational damage and ensures that research efforts are channeled through credible and impactful media.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.545, the institution shows a low rate of hyper-authored publications, demonstrating considerable resilience against the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.220). This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic pressures that can lead to author list inflation. By maintaining transparency and accountability in authorship, the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby reinforcing the integrity of its research contributions.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.221 indicates a prudent and sustainable profile, as this value is healthier than the national average of -0.073. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is rooted in its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership. This result is a strong indicator of scientific maturity, showing that the university's excellence metrics are driven by genuine internal capabilities, which ensures long-term stability and academic autonomy.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -0.528 in this indicator is almost identical to the national average of -0.521, reflecting a state of statistical normality. The risk level is low and aligns perfectly with the expected context for an institution of its size and scope. This alignment suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality in research output, indicating that the institutional culture does not incentivize extreme publication volumes that might challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The data shows no evidence of systemic issues like coercive authorship or other dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific integrity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution is in complete synchrony with the national standard (-0.242), where reliance on in-house journals is minimal. This alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security is a positive sign. It demonstrates a firm commitment to independent, external peer review, thereby avoiding the conflicts of interest that can arise when an institution acts as both judge and party. This practice not only prevents academic endogamy but also enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of the university's scientific production.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution operates in a state of preventive isolation regarding redundant publications, with a Z-score of -0.508 marking a very low risk. This is particularly noteworthy when compared to the national context, which shows a medium-risk level (Z-score: 0.052). This strong negative result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. It suggests a research culture that values significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity through practices like 'salami slicing,' thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record and avoiding an unnecessary burden on the peer-review system.