| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.446 | -0.823 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | -0.096 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.042 | -0.210 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.400 | 0.075 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.213 | -0.336 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
1.087 | 0.912 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.025 | -1.248 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.128 | 0.031 |
The University of East Sarajevo presents a balanced integrity profile with an overall score of -0.053, indicating a general alignment with global research standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its robust control over academic endogamy, evidenced by a very low rate of publication in its own journals, and its effective mitigation of risks related to retracted and redundant output, where it performs better than the national average. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a rate of hyperprolific authors that is unusually high for the national context, a moderate tendency towards institutional self-citation, and a notable rate of publication in discontinued journals. The University of East Sarajevo demonstrates significant thematic leadership within Bosnia and Herzegovina, ranking first in critical areas such as Business, Management and Accounting; Computer Science; Environmental Science; and Mathematics, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While these strengths are commendable, the identified risks, particularly the dependency on external partners for impact, could challenge the mission's goal of achieving "equal partnership." A commitment to "quality level of study" is undermined when research is channeled through discontinued journals or when productivity metrics suggest a potential quantity-over-quality imbalance. By proactively addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the University can further solidify its scientific integrity, ensuring its recognized thematic strengths are built upon a foundation of sustainable and transparent research practices, fully realizing its mission of international partnership and academic excellence.
The University's Z-score for this indicator is -0.446, slightly higher than the national average of -0.823. This minimal difference suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating the presence of signals that warrant review before they escalate. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the slight increase compared to the national baseline could signal early-stage strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Monitoring this trend is advisable to ensure that all affiliations reflect genuine and substantial collaboration rather than "affiliation shopping."
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.343, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.096. This demonstrates a prudent profile, suggesting that the University manages its pre-publication quality control processes with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate like this one indicates that the institution's mechanisms for ensuring methodological soundness and integrity are functioning effectively, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of withdrawn publications.
With a Z-score of 0.042, the University shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.210. This indicates a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to self-citation compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate can signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be partially oversized by internal dynamics rather than broad recognition from the global community.
The University's Z-score of 0.400 is notably higher than the national average of 0.075, even though both fall within a medium-risk context. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the institution is more prone to this particular risk than its environment. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a portion of the University's scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution's Z-score of -0.213 is slightly above the national average of -0.336. This subtle increase points to an incipient vulnerability, where signals of potential author list inflation are present and warrant observation. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance outside these contexts can dilute individual accountability. This indicator serves as a signal to ensure a clear distinction between necessary massive collaboration and the emergence of 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The University's Z-score of 1.087 is higher than the national average of 0.912, indicating a high exposure to this risk factor. This wide positive gap, where overall impact is significantly higher than the impact of research led by the institution, signals a potential sustainability risk. The score suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. This invites reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.
The University's Z-score for this indicator is 0.025, a figure that stands in stark contrast to the national average of -1.248. This significant divergence from the national standard constitutes a monitoring alert, suggesting an unusual concentration of extremely high publication volumes that requires a review of its underlying causes. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator raises a flag for potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the University demonstrates a very low reliance on its own publications, especially when compared to the national average of 0.153. This result indicates a form of preventive isolation, where the institution successfully avoids the risk dynamics of academic endogamy that may be more common in its national environment. By prioritizing external, independent peer review over in-house journals, the University mitigates potential conflicts of interest and ensures its research undergoes standard competitive validation, enhancing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.128 is considerably lower than the national average of 0.031. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating systemic risks related to publication padding that are more prevalent at the country level. A low score in this area indicates that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing,' is not a significant issue. This reflects a healthy research culture that prioritizes the communication of significant new knowledge over the sheer volume of publications.
