| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.023 | -0.755 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.803 | -0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.094 | 0.660 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.488 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.497 | -0.109 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.325 | 0.400 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.139 | -0.611 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.344 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.630 | 0.026 |
The Medical University of Bialystok demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.509 indicating performance significantly stronger than the global average. This foundation of ethical practice is particularly evident in its clear disconnection from national risk trends, showing exceptional control over institutional self-citation, redundant publications, and the use of in-house journals. These strengths directly support the University's mission to conduct research at the "highest international level" and foster a "responsible" professional culture. This commitment to quality is reflected in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top-tier national positions in key areas such as Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Computer Science. However, a moderate deviation in the Rate of Hyper-Authored Output presents a strategic vulnerability that could undermine the principle of individual accountability central to its mission. To fully realize its vision, the University should leverage its considerable integrity strengths while implementing targeted policies to address authorship practices, ensuring its operational conduct perfectly mirrors its stated commitment to excellence and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.023, well below the national average of -0.755. This result demonstrates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration, aligning with the low-risk profile observed across the country. The absence of elevated risk signals suggests that the University's affiliations are managed with integrity. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this very low rate confirms that there are no signs of strategic attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of authentic contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.803 compared to the national average of -0.058, the institution shows an exceptionally low incidence of retracted publications. This performance is consistent with the low-risk environment in the country and points toward effective quality control and supervision mechanisms. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly below the norm, as seen here, is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture. It suggests that the University's pre-publication review processes are robust, effectively preventing the systemic failures or lack of methodological rigor that can lead to such corrective actions.
The institution's Z-score of -0.094 contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.660, showcasing remarkable institutional resilience. While the national context indicates a medium risk of endogamous citation patterns, the University effectively mitigates this trend. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's low rate demonstrates that it avoids the 'echo chambers' that can inflate impact without sufficient external scrutiny. This indicates that the University's academic influence is validated by the global community, not just by internal dynamics, reflecting a genuine and externally recognized contribution to science.
The institution's Z-score of -0.488 is notably lower than the national average of -0.195, indicating a consistent and responsible selection of publication venues. This alignment with the country's low-risk standard suggests strong due diligence in academic dissemination. A low proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a key sign of quality control, confirming that the institution's research is not being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the University from reputational risks and demonstrates a commitment to avoiding 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.497, a moderate deviation that stands out against the country's low-risk average of -0.109. This discrepancy suggests the University is more sensitive to factors leading to inflated author lists than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance outside these fields can signal practices like 'honorary' authorship, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This indicator serves as an alert to review authorship policies and ensure that credit is assigned based on meaningful intellectual contribution, maintaining the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.325, the institution demonstrates a healthy and sustainable impact model, contrasting positively with the national average of 0.400. This score reflects strong institutional resilience, indicating that the University's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners. A low gap suggests that excellence is structural and generated by internal capacity, as the research led by the institution's own authors achieves an impact comparable to its overall collaborative output. This is a sign of robust intellectual leadership and long-term scientific sustainability.
The institution's Z-score of -0.139, while within the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.611. This slight difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. Although the overall risk is low, the University shows more signals of extreme individual publication volumes than its national counterparts. Such patterns can sometimes challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or an excessive focus on quantity over quality. A proactive review of these signals is advisable to ensure they do not escalate into a more significant issue.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.344. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the University actively avoids the risks of academic endogamy prevalent in its environment. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, a cornerstone of scientific validation. This practice avoids potential conflicts of interest, enhances global visibility, and confirms a commitment to competitive, merit-based publication rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks'.
With a Z-score of -0.630, the institution shows an outstandingly low rate of redundant output, setting it apart from the national average of 0.026, which falls in the medium-risk category. This reflects a strong preventive isolation from potentially problematic national practices. The data strongly suggests the University's researchers are not engaging in 'salami slicing'—the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete, significant work enhances the quality of the scientific record and demonstrates a culture that prioritizes substantive knowledge over mere volume.
