| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.613 | -0.755 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.315 | -0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.454 | 0.660 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.040 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.112 | -0.109 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.183 | 0.400 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.611 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.344 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.592 | 0.026 |
Poznan University of Economics and Business demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall low-risk score of -0.424. The institution exhibits exceptional strengths in areas critical to research sustainability and ethics, including a minimal gap between its overall impact and the impact of research under its own leadership, a near-zero incidence of hyperprolific authorship, and a commendable avoidance of academic endogamy by not over-relying on institutional journals. These results showcase a strong internal governance that effectively isolates the University from certain systemic risks prevalent at the national level. The institution's high standing in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data in Economics, Econometrics and Finance, Business, Management and Accounting, and Psychology, is built on this solid foundation. However, two areas of vulnerability emerge: a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals and a higher-than-average rate of redundant output ('salami slicing'). These practices directly challenge the University's mission to uphold "ethical principles" and "social responsibility," as they risk devaluing its research and misallocating resources. By leveraging its clear strengths in research culture and governance, the University is well-positioned to address these specific challenges, ensuring its operational practices fully align with its commitment to generating responsible and high-impact knowledge for future generations.
The University's Z-score of -0.613 for multiple affiliations, while in a low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.755, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the institution's overall profile is sound, it shows early signals of a practice that warrants review before it escalates. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this slight uptick could indicate emerging strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. Proactive monitoring is recommended to ensure that all declared affiliations continue to reflect genuine and substantial collaborative work.
With a Z-score of -0.315, which is notably lower than the national figure of -0.058, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile in managing post-publication corrections. This suggests that its quality control and supervision mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate indicates that pre-publication review processes are likely effective in preventing systemic errors. This performance reinforces a culture of integrity where methodological rigor is prioritized, minimizing the need for later corrections and bolstering the reliability of its scientific output.
The University exhibits strong institutional resilience, maintaining a low rate of self-citation (Z-score: -0.454) in a national context where this practice is more common (Country Z-score: 0.660). This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms effectively mitigate the systemic risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers'. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines, but by avoiding disproportionately high rates, the University ensures its academic influence is built on broad external scrutiny and global community recognition, rather than on endogamous impact inflation where work is validated without sufficient external peer review.
A moderate deviation from the national standard is observed in this indicator. The University's Z-score of 0.040 places it in a medium-risk category, showing a greater sensitivity to this issue than its national peers, who collectively maintain a low-risk profile (Country Z-score: -0.195). This finding constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. A high proportion of publications in such journals indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do 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 maintains a prudent profile regarding hyper-authorship, with a Z-score of -1.112 that is significantly lower than the already low national standard (Z-score: -0.109). This indicates that the University manages its authorship practices with more rigor than its peers. This low incidence suggests a healthy culture that effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding transparency and ensuring that author lists accurately reflect meaningful intellectual contributions and individual accountability.
The University demonstrates a remarkable case of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -1.183, in stark contrast to the medium-risk national environment (Z-score: 0.400). This shows the institution does not replicate the national dynamic of impact dependency. A minimal gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and endogenous, not reliant on external partners for impact. This reflects a high degree of real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring that its excellence metrics result from its own sustainable research programs rather than strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not lead.
The institution shows strong low-profile consistency, with a Z-score of -1.413 indicating a near-zero incidence of hyperprolific authorship. This absence of risk signals aligns with, and improves upon, the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.611), pointing to a healthy balance between productivity and quality. By avoiding extreme individual publication volumes, the University mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over purely quantitative metrics that can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution.
The University effectively isolates itself from national trends in this area, showing a very low rate of publication in its own journals (Z-score: -0.268) while the country average indicates a medium risk (Z-score: 0.344). This demonstrates a strong commitment to external validation and global visibility. By not over-relying on internal channels, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production undergoes independent, competitive peer review and is not channeled through 'fast tracks' that might be used to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation.
The University shows high exposure to redundant output, with a Z-score of 0.592 that is significantly more pronounced than the national average (Z-score: 0.026), even though both fall within a medium-risk category. This alerts to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic, often called 'salami slicing,' can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system. This finding suggests a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, consolidated new knowledge over sheer volume.
