| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.016 | -0.823 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | -0.096 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.440 | -0.210 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.134 | 0.075 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.026 | -0.336 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.218 | 0.912 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.248 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.319 | 0.031 |
The University of Banja Luka presents a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.308 indicating a performance that is well-aligned with international best practices. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, reflecting a solid governance framework. This strong foundation supports its leadership position within Bosnia and Herzegovina, as evidenced by its top national rankings in key SCImago Institutions Rankings thematic areas such as Arts and Humanities, Energy, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. However, to fully realize its mission of upholding the "highest academic standards" and fostering "sustainable development," attention should be directed towards medium-risk indicators, particularly the rate of publication in discontinued journals and the dependency on external leadership for research impact. Addressing these vulnerabilities will not only mitigate reputational risks but also enhance the structural capacity for endogenous, high-quality scientific research, ensuring its long-term contribution to society.
The institution's Z-score of -1.016, compared to the national average of -0.823, shows a very low rate of multiple affiliations. This indicates a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national context. The absence of signals in this area suggests that affiliations are managed transparently, avoiding practices like “affiliation shopping” which can be used to artificially inflate institutional credit. The university's performance reflects a clear and legitimate representation of its collaborative network.
With a Z-score of -0.296, which is lower than the national average of -0.096, the university demonstrates a prudent and rigorous approach to research quality. This suggests that its internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are more effective than the national standard. A low and controlled rate like this indicates that systemic failures in pre-publication review are not a concern, reinforcing the integrity of the institution's scientific record.
The university's Z-score for institutional self-citation is -0.440, notably lower than the national average of -0.210. This prudent profile indicates that the institution manages its citation practices with greater rigor than its national peers. This low value confirms that the university avoids the risk of creating 'echo chambers' or endogamously inflating its impact, demonstrating a healthy integration with the global scientific community where its work is validated by external scrutiny rather than internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of 0.134 for publications in discontinued journals is higher than the national average of 0.075, indicating a heightened exposure to this particular risk. This pattern suggests the institution is more prone than its national counterparts to channeling research through outlets that fail to meet international quality or ethical standards. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need to improve information literacy among researchers to avoid predatory or low-quality practices.
The university's Z-score of 0.026 for hyper-authored output marks a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.336, suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a higher-than-average rate outside these contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This indicator serves as a signal to review authorship practices and distinguish between necessary large-scale collaboration and potentially 'honorary' or political attributions that do not reflect substantial contributions.
With a Z-score of 1.218, significantly above the national average of 0.912, the university shows high exposure to a dependency on external collaborations for its research impact. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is comparatively low, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be more exogenous than structural, stemming from strategic positioning in collaborations rather than from its own intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal research capacity.
The university's Z-score of -1.413 for hyperprolific authors is exceptionally low, falling even below the already low national average of -1.248. This signifies a state of total operational silence in this risk area. The complete absence of signals related to extreme individual publication volumes suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, indicating that the institutional culture does not encourage practices like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing' to inflate publication counts, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.153, which sits at a medium-risk level. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids a risk dynamic prevalent in its national environment. By not over-relying on its in-house journals, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and competitive validation.
With a Z-score of -0.319, compared to the national average of 0.031, the university shows strong institutional resilience against the practice of redundant publication. While the national context shows a medium-level risk for 'salami slicing,' the institution's control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate this systemic vulnerability. This low value indicates that researchers are not incentivized to artificially inflate their productivity by fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units, a practice that distorts scientific evidence. The university's approach prioritizes the communication of significant new knowledge over sheer volume.
