Norwegian School of Economics

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Norwegian School of Economics demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.295 indicating a performance well above the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and output in discontinued journals, signaling a culture that prioritizes external validation, quality over quantity, and rigorous selection of publication venues. This strong foundation is further supported by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which places the institution at the forefront nationally in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (ranked 3rd in Norway), Business, Management and Accounting (11th), and Environmental Science (12th). This performance aligns seamlessly with the institutional mission "Together for sustainable value creation," as scientific integrity is the bedrock of trustworthy and lasting contributions. However, a medium-risk signal in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, which is higher than the national average, presents a potential point of friction with this mission, as it could suggest practices that prioritize institutional credit over transparent collaboration. To fully embody its mission, it is recommended that the institution reviews its affiliation policies to ensure they reflect the same high standards of transparency and integrity evident across nearly all other indicators, thereby solidifying its position as a leader in sustainable and responsible research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 1.699, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.802. This value places the institution in a position of high exposure to a risk that is already present at a medium level across the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of partnerships, the institution's more pronounced signal suggests it is more prone than its national peers to practices that could be perceived as strategic. It is crucial to analyze whether this elevated rate stems from genuine, productive collaborations that create value or if it signals an inflation of institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," a practice that could undermine the transparency of its research ecosystem.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.052, the institution's risk level is low but slightly more pronounced than the national average of -0.255. This score suggests an incipient vulnerability; while the institution operates within a low-risk context, it shows early signals that warrant review before they escalate. Retractions can be complex, sometimes reflecting responsible error correction. However, a rate that trends higher than the national baseline, even if still low, may indicate that pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be facing strain. This serves as a proactive alert to reinforce supervision and methodological rigor to prevent any potential for recurring malpractice from becoming a systemic issue.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.314, positioning it far below the national average of -0.192. This result demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals is even more pronounced than the already low-risk national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but this remarkably low value confirms that the institution's work is validated by the broader scientific community, not within an internal 'echo chamber.' This performance is a strong indicator of scientific extroversion and shows that the institution's academic influence is built on global recognition rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.545 is outstanding, indicating total operational silence on this risk indicator and performing even better than the very low-risk national average of -0.435. This exemplary score shows that the institution has virtually no exposure to publications in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. It reflects exceptional due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels, effectively protecting the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing and ensuring that research resources are invested wisely.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.006, the institution demonstrates a low-risk profile, contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.220. This disparity highlights the institution's resilience, as its internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks observed elsewhere in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in some 'Big Science' fields, the institution's low score suggests it effectively prevents author list inflation in other contexts. This indicates a culture that values transparency and individual accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.903 is in the very low-risk category, significantly better than the low-risk national average of -0.073. This excellent result signifies low-profile consistency, where the institution's strong performance aligns with a secure national environment. The minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and internally driven, not dependent on external partners. This is a powerful sign of sustainability, confirming that its high-impact research is the result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it plays a secondary role.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.413, an exceptionally low value that is consistent with, and even improves upon, the low-risk national average of -0.521. This low-profile consistency signals a healthy research environment. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The institution's very low score indicates a strong balance between quantity and quality, suggesting an absence of dynamics like coercive authorship or metric-driven pressures, and a culture that prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over sheer volume.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's performance is almost identical to the national average of -0.242, reflecting integrity synchrony with its environment. This alignment in the very low-risk category demonstrates that the institution operates with maximum scientific security regarding this indicator. By avoiding over-reliance on its own journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thereby enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.215 places it in the low-risk category, a favorable position compared to the national average of 0.052, which signals a medium-level risk. This difference highlights the institution's resilience and its ability to maintain effective controls against a vulnerability more present in the national system. A high rate of bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies to inflate publication counts. The institution's low score suggests a culture that prioritizes the generation of significant new knowledge over the artificial inflation of productivity, thereby upholding the integrity of scientific evidence.