AGH University of Science and Technology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

AGH University of Science and Technology demonstrates a robust performance profile, marked by world-class leadership in key technological and scientific fields, yet concurrently facing significant challenges in research integrity that require strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.553, the institution shows commendable strengths, particularly in its prudent management of institutional journals and avoidance of discontinued publishing channels. These practices reflect a solid foundation of academic governance. However, this is contrasted by critical alerts in the rates of retracted output and hyper-authorship, alongside notable exposure to risks of self-citation and impact dependency. The university's exceptional standing, as evidenced by its top national rankings in the SCImago Institutions Rankings for Energy, Engineering, Computer Science, and Mathematics, is undeniable. This leadership position directly supports its mission to advance the "knowledge triangle" of education, research, and innovation for national development. Nevertheless, the identified integrity risks pose a direct threat to this mission, as recurring malpractice or questionable authorship could undermine the credibility of its scientific contributions and compromise the very "excellence" it strives for. To secure its legacy and ensure its innovations have lasting, trusted impact, it is imperative that the university channels its clear capacity for leadership toward reinforcing its culture of scientific integrity, transforming these vulnerabilities into new benchmarks of institutional responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -0.797 for multiple affiliations is in close alignment with the national average of -0.755, indicating a risk level that is normal and expected for its context. This demonstrates a healthy and well-managed pattern of collaboration. While multiple affiliations can sometimes be used to inflate institutional credit, the university's low and standard rate suggests that its affiliations are the legitimate result of researcher mobility and strategic partnerships, reflecting a transparent and appropriate approach to academic collaboration without signals of "affiliation shopping."

Rate of Retracted Output

A Z-score of 1.422 in retracted publications marks a severe discrepancy from the national average of -0.058, signaling an atypical and concerning level of risk that requires a deep integrity assessment. Retractions are complex, but a rate this far above the national norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This is not merely about correcting honest errors; such a high value alerts to a significant vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, pointing to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that warrants immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of 1.739, the university demonstrates a higher exposure to institutional self-citation compared to the national average of 0.660. This suggests the institution is more prone to this risk than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for concerning scientific isolation or "echo chambers" where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.220 for publications in discontinued journals is statistically normal and consistent with the national average of -0.195. This alignment indicates that the university exercises appropriate due diligence in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals would be a critical alert, but the university’s low rate confirms that its scientific production is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, thereby protecting it from the reputational risks associated with predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university's Z-score of 1.733 for hyper-authored output represents a severe discrepancy when compared to the national average of -0.109. This atypical risk activity demands a thorough integrity assessment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in "Big Science" disciplines, a high Z-score outside these contexts can indicate systemic author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This signal is a critical call to investigate and distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and the potential prevalence of "honorary" or political authorship practices that compromise research integrity.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.656 in its impact gap, showing a higher exposure to this risk than the national average of 0.400. This indicates that the university is more prone to depending on external partners for its citation impact. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a sustainability risk. This value suggests that the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, rather than structural. It invites a strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 0.374, the institution shows a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.611, indicating a greater sensitivity to the risks of hyperprolific authorship than its national peers. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme individual publication volumes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metric inflation over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of internal authorship policies.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.019 demonstrates remarkable resilience, especially when contrasted with the national average of 0.344, which indicates a systemic risk at the country level. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a risk prevalent in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the institution successfully sidesteps conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels rather than internal "fast tracks."

Rate of Redundant Output

The university's Z-score of 0.158 for redundant output indicates a high exposure to this risk, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.026. This suggests the institution is more prone than its peers to practices that artificially inflate publication counts. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often indicates data fragmentation or "salami slicing," where a single study is divided into minimal publishable units. This value serves as an alert that such practices may be distorting the available scientific evidence and overburdening the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.