| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.357 | -0.823 |
|
Retracted Output
|
1.761 | -0.096 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.243 | -0.210 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.061 | 0.075 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.132 | -0.336 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
3.807 | 0.912 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.248 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.032 | 0.031 |
The University of Tuzla presents a complex integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in individual research practices but undermined by critical vulnerabilities in quality control and strategic dependency. With an overall score of 0.410, the institution demonstrates a solid foundation of responsible authorship, reflected in very low-risk levels for institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authors, multiple affiliations, and output in its own journals. However, this positive base is severely compromised by two significant risks: an unusually high rate of retracted output and a substantial gap in scientific impact between collaborative research and work led by the institution itself. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these findings present a direct challenge to the core tenets of any university committed to academic excellence and social responsibility. A high rate of retractions erodes public trust and scientific credibility, while a heavy reliance on external partners for impact questions the long-term sustainability and development of internal research capacity. The strategic priority should be a dual-pronged approach: first, conducting an urgent qualitative audit of the processes leading to the high retraction rate to reinforce pre-publication quality controls; and second, developing a long-term strategy to foster intellectual leadership and build sustainable, high-impact research programs from within. By addressing these critical areas, the University can leverage its existing strengths to build a more resilient and reputable scientific ecosystem.
The University of Tuzla shows a Z-score of -1.357, which is well below the national average of -0.823. This result indicates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals at the institutional level is in harmony with the low-risk standard observed nationally. This suggests that the university's affiliations are managed with clarity and transparency, avoiding practices like "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit. The data points to a stable and well-defined collaborative framework.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 1.761 in this indicator, a figure that represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.096. This atypical level of risk activity requires a deep integrity assessment. While some retractions result from honest error correction, a rate significantly higher than the national average strongly suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This high score alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that demands immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
With a Z-score of -1.243, significantly lower than the country's average of -0.210, the university demonstrates an excellent profile in this area. This low-profile consistency, where the institution's near-zero risk aligns with the low-risk national context, indicates a healthy integration into the global scientific community. The data suggests that the institution's work is validated by external scrutiny rather than through internal "echo chambers," effectively mitigating any risk of endogamous impact inflation and confirming that its academic influence is earned through broad recognition.
The university's Z-score of 0.061 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.075, pointing to a systemic pattern. This alignment suggests that the medium risk level observed is not an isolated institutional issue but rather reflects shared practices or challenges at a national level regarding the selection of publication venues. A notable proportion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing both the institution and the country to reputational risks. This shared vulnerability highlights a need for improved information literacy to avoid channeling resources into predatory or low-quality journals.
The institution's Z-score of -0.132, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.336. This signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Although extensive author lists can be legitimate in "Big Science," this slight upward deviation from the national norm suggests a need to ensure that authorship practices remain transparent and accountable across all disciplines. It serves as a prompt to verify that author lists reflect genuine collaboration rather than honorary or inflated attributions.
The University of Tuzla has a Z-score of 3.807, a critically high value that significantly accentuates the vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.912). This extremely wide positive gap indicates a severe sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is overwhelmingly dependent and exogenous, not structural. The data strongly implies that its high-impact metrics result from strategic positioning in collaborations where the university does not exercise intellectual leadership, raising fundamental questions about its capacity to generate world-class research independently.
With a Z-score of -1.413, the University of Tuzla demonstrates a total operational silence in this area, showing an absence of risk signals that is even more pronounced than the country's already low-risk average of -1.248. This exceptional result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality in its research output. The institution effectively avoids the risks associated with extreme individual publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby upholding the principle that authorship should reflect meaningful intellectual contribution.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.153, demonstrating a case of preventive isolation. The university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, where publishing in institutional journals is more common. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which strengthens its global visibility and validates its research against international competitive standards.
The university's Z-score of 1.032 indicates high exposure to this risk, standing in stark contrast to the near-zero national average of 0.031. This suggests the institution is significantly more prone to alert signals for this behavior than its peers. Such a high value warns of a potential practice of dividing coherent studies into "minimal publishable units" to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This dynamic, often called "salami slicing," not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
