| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.208 | -0.021 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.878 | 1.173 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.333 | -0.059 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.017 | 0.812 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.493 | -0.681 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.310 | 0.218 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.764 | 0.267 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.157 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.473 | -0.339 |
The University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences demonstrates a solid overall performance with a score of 0.778, underpinned by significant strengths in maintaining research independence and external validation. The institution exhibits very low-risk profiles in Institutional Self-Citation, Output in Institutional Journals, and Redundant Output, indicating a culture that prioritizes global engagement over internal echo chambers. However, this positive profile is contrasted by two critical areas of concern: a significant-risk level in Retracted Output, which is substantially higher than the national average, and a medium-risk level in the gap between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads. These vulnerabilities directly challenge the university's mission to ensure "professional excellence, integrity and ethical conduct." The high retraction rate, in particular, suggests a potential disconnect between stated values and pre-publication quality controls. This risk is especially pertinent given the institution's outstanding reputation in key thematic areas, including its Top 2 national ranking in Veterinary and Top 25 rankings in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To safeguard its esteemed position and fully align its practices with its mission, it is recommended that the university initiates a targeted review of its research integrity framework, focusing on strengthening supervision and quality assurance mechanisms to mitigate the risks that could otherwise tarnish its considerable academic achievements.
The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 0.208, indicating a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.021. This suggests the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a rate that is notably higher than the country's low-risk standard warrants attention. This pattern could signal an emerging trend towards strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to inflate institutional credit, making it prudent to review internal policies to ensure all declared affiliations are substantive and transparent.
With a Z-score of 2.878, the institution's rate of retracted output is a global red flag, significantly exceeding the already high national average of 1.173. This critical value indicates that the university is a leading contributor to this risk metric within a country already facing integrity challenges. While some retractions result from honest error correction, a rate this high suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor, requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation and align with its stated mission of excellence.
The institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.333, which is significantly below the country's low-risk average of -0.059. This absence of risk signals is a strong positive indicator, confirming a healthy integration into the global scientific community and a reliance on external validation. This practice ensures the institution avoids creating scientific "echo chambers" and demonstrates that its academic influence is built on broad, independent recognition rather than being inflated by internal citation dynamics.
The university displays strong institutional resilience in its choice of publication venues, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.017, which stands in positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.812. This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms and researcher training are effective in mitigating the systemic national risk of publishing in low-quality or discontinued journals. This careful due diligence acts as a firewall, protecting the university from the severe reputational damage and wasted resources associated with predatory publishing practices.
With a Z-score of -0.493, the institution's rate of hyper-authored output is within a low-risk range but is slightly higher than the national average of -0.681, signaling an incipient vulnerability. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" disciplines, this subtle upward trend warrants review to ensure it does not represent a move toward author list inflation in other fields. This signal provides an opportunity to proactively reinforce policies that promote transparency and meaningful contributions for authorship, thereby preventing the dilution of individual accountability.
The institution exhibits a high exposure to dependency risk, with a Z-score of 2.310 that is significantly greater than the national average of 0.218. This wide positive gap suggests that while the university's overall scientific impact is high, a substantial portion of this prestige is derived from collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, indicating that its reputation may be more exogenous and dependent on external partners than structurally embedded. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal capacity to ensure long-term scientific sovereignty.
The institution effectively manages author productivity, as shown by its low-risk Z-score of -0.764, which is notably better than the medium-risk national average of 0.267. This demonstrates institutional resilience, suggesting that control mechanisms are in place to mitigate the risks associated with extreme publication volumes. By maintaining this oversight, the university avoids potential imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or credit assigned without real participation, and instead promotes a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of metrics.
The university shows an exemplary commitment to external validation, with a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a near-total absence of output in its own journals and a rate even lower than the country's very low average of -0.157. This operational silence is a powerful indicator of academic integrity. It confirms that the institution's research consistently undergoes independent, external peer review, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest, academic endogamy, and the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication without standard competitive validation.
The institution maintains a very low-risk profile for redundant publications, with a Z-score of -0.473. This absence of risk signals aligns with the low-risk standard observed at the national level (Z-score of -0.339). This result indicates a healthy research culture that prioritizes substantive, coherent contributions over the artificial inflation of publication counts through data fragmentation. By avoiding the practice of 'salami slicing,' the university upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the resources of the peer-review system.
