University of Sarajevo

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Sarajevo demonstrates a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of -0.360 that reflects a performance generally superior to the national standard in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in areas critical to research quality, showing virtually no signs of hyperprolific authorship or excessive reliance on institutional journals, thereby avoiding common pitfalls of academic endogamy and metric-driven pressures. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate tendency towards institutional self-citation and redundant output, which mirror systemic patterns at the national level. These integrity metrics are foundational to the university's leadership, evidenced by its top national rankings in diverse and strategic fields such as Engineering, Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Social Sciences, and Veterinary, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully realize its mission of fostering an "inspiring... environment for... research" and building a "strong international network," it is crucial to address these moderate risks. Practices like self-citation can limit the global engagement the mission seeks, while redundant output may dilute the "critical thinking" and "innovative solutions" it aims to produce. By leveraging its clear strengths to mitigate these systemic vulnerabilities, the University of Sarajevo can further solidify its reputation for excellence and its role as a beacon of reliable and impactful research in the region.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Sarajevo presents a Z-score of -1.068, indicating a very low incidence of this practice, which contrasts with the national average of -0.823. This demonstrates a commendable alignment with national standards, showing an even more conservative profile. The institution’s near-absence of risk signals in this area suggests that its affiliations are managed with clarity and transparency. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's low rate confirms it is not engaging in practices that could be perceived as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," thereby reinforcing the integrity of its collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.212, the institution maintains a low-risk profile, performing more rigorously than the national average of -0.096. This prudent positioning suggests that the university's internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are more effective than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate signifies responsible oversight. The university's superior performance indicates that its pre-publication review processes are robust, successfully minimizing the systemic failures or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to a higher incidence of retractions, thus protecting its scientific record and reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.115, placing it at a medium risk level, which marks a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk average of -0.210. This discrepancy suggests the university is more sensitive to this risk factor than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting ongoing research lines. However, this elevated rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The University of Sarajevo shows a Z-score of -0.062, a low-risk value that demonstrates significant institutional resilience, especially when compared to the national average of 0.075, which falls into the medium-risk category. This suggests that the university's control mechanisms effectively mitigate a risk that appears more systemic across the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence. The university's strong performance indicates it successfully guides its researchers away from channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby avoiding severe reputational risks and the potential waste of resources on 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.529 is firmly in the low-risk category and indicates a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.336. This suggests that the university manages its authorship practices with greater rigor than the national standard. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. The university's controlled rate serves as a positive signal that it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, promoting transparency and responsibility in its research output.

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

With a Z-score of 0.202, the university registers a medium-risk gap, yet this performance indicates differentiated management compared to the national average of 0.912, which is also medium-risk but substantially higher. This shows the institution successfully moderates a risk that is far more pronounced across the country. A wide gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The university's smaller gap, while still notable, suggests it possesses a more balanced and sustainable model, exercising greater intellectual leadership in its collaborations and building a more structural foundation for its scientific excellence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University of Sarajevo records a Z-score of -1.413, a value that signifies a near-total absence of risk signals and is even stronger than the country's already very low-risk average of -1.248. This state of operational silence in a critical integrity metric is exceptional. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship or a focus on quantity over quality. The university's outstanding score demonstrates a research culture that prioritizes substantive scientific contributions over the artificial inflation of publication metrics, safeguarding the integrity of its academic record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 places it in the very low-risk category, representing a case of preventive isolation from the national trend, where the average score is 0.153 (medium risk). This stark contrast indicates the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and bypass independent peer review. The university’s minimal reliance on such channels demonstrates a commitment to global standards and external validation, enhancing its international visibility and avoiding the risk of academic endogamy or the use of internal journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing)

The university's Z-score of 0.029 (medium risk) is nearly identical to the national average of 0.031, indicating that its performance reflects a systemic pattern common within the country. This alignment suggests that the institution is subject to the same academic pressures or evaluation frameworks that prevail nationally. This practice, characterized by massive bibliographic overlap between publications, points to the risk of data fragmentation, where studies are divided into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. This shared challenge highlights a need to encourage the production of more significant, coherent knowledge over a high volume of fragmented outputs.