| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.262 | -0.755 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.663 | -0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.106 | 0.660 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.424 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.526 | -0.109 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.794 | 0.400 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.611 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.344 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.406 | 0.026 |
The University of Agriculture in Krakow demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.609. This performance indicates a general alignment with best practices and a low exposure to systemic vulnerabilities. The institution's primary strength lies in its capacity to operate with greater rigor than its national context, showing exceptional control in areas such as the impact of its own-led research, publication in institutional journals, and the avoidance of redundant publications. The main area for strategic attention is a moderate, and higher-than-average, rate of institutional self-citation, which warrants a review of internal validation dynamics. This strong integrity foundation supports the university's leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top national positions in Earth and Planetary Sciences, Veterinary, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics. This commitment to sound research practices is fundamental to its mission of educating experts for sustainable development. By addressing the identified risk of academic insularity, the university can further solidify its role as a credible and globally recognized authority, ensuring its contributions to food, forest, and environmental sciences are built on a foundation of unquestionable excellence and social responsibility.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.262, significantly lower than the national average of -0.755. This result indicates a very low-risk profile that is consistent with, and even exceeds, the national standard for responsible collaboration. The complete absence of signals related to strategic affiliation inflation or "affiliation shopping" confirms that the university's collaborative practices are transparent and grounded in legitimate academic partnerships, reflecting a healthy and well-managed research ecosystem.
With a Z-score of -0.663, compared to a national average of -0.058, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications. This performance suggests that its pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. The institution's profile is consistent with the national standard, indicating a strong culture of scientific integrity where potential errors are identified and corrected responsibly before they can escalate into formal retractions, thereby safeguarding the reliability of its scientific record.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.106, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.660. This suggests that the university is more exposed to the risks associated with this practice than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines, this elevated rate could signal a tendency towards scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern, more pronounced here than in the rest of the country, warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.424 is well below the national average of -0.195, indicating a very low-risk profile. This performance demonstrates a consistent and effective due diligence process in the selection of publication venues. By avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the university successfully protects its resources and reputation from the risks associated with predatory or low-quality publishing, aligning its practices with the national standard for scholarly communication.
With a Z-score of -0.526, compared to the national average of -0.109, the institution displays a prudent and rigorous approach to authorship. This profile suggests that the university manages its collaborative processes with greater stringency than the national standard. The data shows no evidence of author list inflation or honorary authorship practices, reinforcing a culture of transparency and ensuring that credit is assigned based on meaningful intellectual contribution and individual accountability.
The institution's Z-score of -0.794 stands in sharp contrast to the national average of 0.400, which points to a systemic risk in the country. This result highlights the university's institutional resilience, as it effectively mitigates this national vulnerability. The minimal gap indicates that the institution's scientific prestige is built on strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being dependent on external partners. This demonstrates a sustainable model of excellence, where impact is generated structurally from within, avoiding the risks of an exogenous and dependent research profile.
The institution records a Z-score of -1.413, far below the national average of -0.611. This signifies a complete absence of risk signals related to hyperprolific authorship. This performance is consistent with the national context and points to a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes the quality and integrity of the scientific record over sheer publication volume. There are no indications of practices such as coercive authorship or other dynamics that artificially inflate productivity metrics, ensuring a sound balance between quantity and meaningful contribution.
With a Z-score of -0.268, compared to a national average of 0.344, the institution demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation from a risk dynamic observed in its environment. By not relying on its own journals for dissemination, the university effectively avoids the potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy that can arise from such practices. This commitment to independent, external peer review enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels.
The institution's Z-score of -0.406 contrasts significantly with the national average of 0.026, showcasing strong institutional resilience. This indicates that the university has effective control mechanisms in place to mitigate the risk of 'salami slicing,' a vulnerability more prevalent at the national level. The low rate of redundant output suggests a focus on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than fragmenting research into minimal units, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence it contributes and respecting the resources of the peer-review system.
