| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.220 | -0.755 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.663 | -0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.212 | 0.660 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.271 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.111 | -0.109 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.542 | 0.400 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.611 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.344 |
|
Redundant Output
|
3.473 | 0.026 |
Koszalin University of Technology presents a robust integrity profile characterized by significant strengths in operational transparency and responsible authorship, alongside specific, high-impact vulnerabilities that require strategic intervention. With an overall integrity score of -0.283, the institution demonstrates exceptional control in areas such as Multiple Affiliations, Retracted Output, and Hyperprolific Authorship, indicating a solid foundation of ethical research conduct. However, this is contrasted by a critical alert in the Rate of Redundant Output (Salami Slicing) and notable risks in Institutional Self-Citation and publication in Discontinued Journals. These weaknesses could undermine the institution's strong academic standing, particularly in its leading fields as identified by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Environmental Science (ranked 15th in Poland), Physics and Astronomy (23rd), and Engineering (25th). While the institution's formal mission was not localized for this report, any pursuit of academic excellence and social responsibility is inherently challenged by practices that prioritize publication volume over substantive scientific contribution. To fully align its operational integrity with its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the University leverage its solid governance foundation to implement targeted policies and training aimed at mitigating the identified risks, thereby ensuring its research impact is both genuine and sustainable.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.220, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.755. This demonstrates a commendable level of transparency and consistency in how researcher affiliations are managed. The complete absence of risk signals, even when compared to a low-risk national standard, suggests that the institution's collaborative frameworks are well-defined and not susceptible to strategic manipulation. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of partnerships, this institution’s prudent profile indicates that its collaborations are structured to reflect genuine scientific cooperation rather than attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.663, the institution maintains a very low rate of retracted publications, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.058. This alignment with a low-risk national environment points to the effectiveness of its internal quality control mechanisms. A near-absence of retractions suggests that research is conducted with methodological rigor and that supervision processes are robust enough to identify and correct potential errors before publication. This reflects a strong integrity culture that successfully prevents the systemic failures or recurring malpractice that a higher rate might otherwise indicate.
The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 1.212, notably higher than the national average of 0.660. This indicates that the university is more exposed to this particular risk than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this elevated rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers,' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This pattern warns of a risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than by broader recognition from the global scientific community.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.271 in this indicator, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.195, which sits in a low-risk category. This divergence suggests the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. This score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output may be channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to reputational risks and signaling a need to reinforce information literacy to avoid 'predatory' practices.
With a Z-score of -1.111, the institution demonstrates a more prudent approach to authorship than the national standard, which has a score of -0.109. This exceptionally low score indicates that the university manages its authorship processes with greater rigor than its peers. This suggests a clear and effective policy for distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration, common in 'Big Science,' and practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. By maintaining such a low rate, the institution reinforces individual accountability and transparency in its research contributions.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.542, indicating a low-risk profile that contrasts with the medium-risk national average of 0.400. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent in the country. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners but is instead driven by its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership. This finding points to a sustainable model of excellence, where impact metrics are a direct result of genuine internal research capabilities.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, reinforcing the low-risk national standard of -0.611. This operational silence in terms of hyperprolific activity is a strong positive signal. The absence of authors with extreme publication volumes suggests a healthy institutional culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer quantity. This effectively mitigates risks associated with such profiles, including coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of the scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.344, which indicates a medium-level risk. This preventive isolation demonstrates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for achieving global visibility and competitive validation, rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.
The institution's Z-score in this category is 3.473, a critical value that signals a significant risk and accentuates a vulnerability that is only moderately present in the national system (Z-score of 0.026). This extremely high value is a powerful alert for the practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. Such data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing,' not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the peer-review system. This finding points to an urgent need to review institutional publication strategies and research ethics policies to ensure that the focus is on generating significant new knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.
