| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.017 | 0.802 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.277 | -0.255 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.717 | -0.192 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.238 | -0.435 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.079 | 0.220 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.495 | -0.073 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.521 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.242 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-1.186 | 0.052 |
Molde University College demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.271, which indicates a performance significantly superior to the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over authorship practices and publication ethics, with very low risk signals for hyperprolific authors, redundant output (salami slicing), and publication in institutional journals. These results suggest a culture that prioritizes research quality and transparency. The main area requiring strategic attention is the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which, while reflecting a common national pattern, is notably more pronounced at the institution and warrants a review of affiliation policies. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the College's academic strengths are concentrated in key areas such as Business, Management and Accounting; Computer Science; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; and Social Sciences. While the institutional mission was not specified, any commitment to academic excellence and social responsibility is fundamentally supported by this strong integrity foundation. However, the elevated risk in multiple affiliations could potentially undermine this mission by creating a perception of inflated institutional credit. A proactive approach to managing this specific indicator will ensure that the institution's recognized thematic excellence is built upon an unimpeachable and sustainable ethical framework.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.017, which is significantly higher than the national average of 0.802. Although both the institution and the country operate within a medium-risk context for this indicator, the College shows a much greater exposure to this particular risk factor. This suggests that institutional practices or researcher behaviors are more prone to generating multiple affiliations than the national norm. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this disproportionately high rate signals a need to review whether it may be part of a strategic attempt to inflate institutional credit through “affiliation shopping,” a practice that could compromise the transparency of institutional contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.277, the institution's performance is statistically normal and fully aligned with the national average of -0.255. This low and stable rate of retractions is a positive sign. Retractions can be complex events, and a baseline level often reflects a healthy academic environment where unintentional errors are corrected responsibly. The data indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication are functioning as expected for its context, with no evidence of systemic failures or recurring malpractice that would suggest a vulnerability in its integrity culture.
The institution demonstrates a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.717, indicating a more rigorous approach to citation practices than the national standard, which has a score of -0.192. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, the College's significantly lower rate is a strong indicator of external validation and integration within the global scientific community. This performance effectively mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and suggests that the institution's academic influence is genuinely driven by global community recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
A slight divergence is observed in this area, with the institution's Z-score at -0.238 (low risk) compared to the country's very low-risk score of -0.435. This indicates that while the overall risk is low, the College shows minor signals of activity in this area that are largely absent at the national level. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals may be incidental, but this pattern constitutes a minor alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It suggests a potential need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure institutional resources are not inadvertently channeled into 'predatory' or low-quality media, which could pose future reputational risks.
The institution exhibits notable resilience, with a Z-score of -1.079 (low risk) in contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.220. This demonstrates that the College's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk that is more prevalent across the country. This strong performance suggests that institutional governance successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and the risk of author list inflation. By maintaining transparency and accountability in authorship, the institution avoids questionable 'honorary' or political authorship practices and ensures that credit accurately reflects intellectual contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.495, the institution displays a prudent profile that is more robust than the national average of -0.073. This low score indicates a healthy and sustainable research ecosystem where the impact generated by institution-led research is strong and not overly reliant on external partners. This performance signals that the College's scientific prestige is built upon a solid foundation of internal capacity and intellectual leadership, successfully avoiding the sustainability risk that arises when excellence metrics are primarily dependent on collaborations where the institution does not play a leading role.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 reflects a very low-risk profile, showing a complete absence of risk signals in an area where the country shows some minor activity (Z-score of -0.521). This low-profile consistency aligns with the highest standards of scientific integrity. It indicates a healthy institutional balance between quantity and quality, with no evidence of the extreme individual publication volumes that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This result suggests the absence of dynamics like coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, reinforcing a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record.
An integrity synchrony is observed, with the institution's Z-score of -0.268 being almost identical to the national average of -0.242, both within the very low-risk category. This total alignment with a secure national environment demonstrates a shared commitment to external validation. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice is crucial for limiting academic endogamy and enhancing the global visibility and competitive validation of its research.
The institution demonstrates a remarkable preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -1.186 (very low risk) compared to the country's medium-risk score of 0.052. This result indicates that the College does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. The data strongly suggests an institutional culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity metrics. By avoiding the practice of dividing studies into minimal publishable units, the institution upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and avoids overburdening the peer-review system, a clear point of differentiation from the national context.
