| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.377 | -0.755 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.522 | -0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
2.305 | 0.660 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.174 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.178 | -0.109 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.004 | 0.400 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.188 | -0.611 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.344 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.347 | 0.026 |
Rzeszow University of Technology presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by an overall low-risk score of -0.332 and exceptional performance in multiple key areas. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining low rates of multiple affiliations, retracted output, hyper-authored publications, and hyperprolific authors, indicating a strong foundation of responsible research practices. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a high rate of institutional self-citation, a moderate rate of publication in discontinued journals, and a tendency toward redundant output. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are particularly notable in Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 4th in Poland), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (9th), and Mathematics (11th). While the institution's overall integrity is high, the identified vulnerabilities could subtly undermine its mission to instill "due diligence" and "respect for their community." Addressing these medium-risk areas will be crucial to ensure that all research practices fully align with the university's commitment to excellence and social responsibility, thereby reinforcing its leadership position within the national science system.
The institution exhibits an exemplary profile with a Z-score of -1.377, which is significantly lower than the national average of -0.755. This demonstrates a consistent and healthy pattern of academic collaboration that aligns perfectly with the national standard. The complete absence of risk signals in this area suggests that affiliations are managed with transparency, reflecting legitimate partnerships and researcher mobility rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping.”
With a Z-score of -0.522, well below the national average of -0.058, the institution showcases a strong commitment to research quality and integrity. This low-profile consistency indicates that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication are robust and effective. The data suggests a healthy integrity culture where methodological rigor is prioritized, systemically preventing the kinds of errors or malpractice that could lead to a high rate of retractions and subsequent reputational damage.
The institution's Z-score of 2.305 is notably higher than the national average of 0.660, indicating a greater exposure to this risk factor compared to its national peers. While a degree of self-citation reflects the natural continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of an 'echo chamber.' This pattern warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by sufficient external scrutiny from the broader scientific community.
The institution shows a moderate deviation from the national trend, with a Z-score of 0.174 compared to the country's score of -0.195. This suggests a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers. This indicator serves as a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. The score indicates that a portion of the university's scientific output is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, which could expose the institution to severe reputational risks and points to an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' or low-quality practices.
The institution maintains a very low Z-score of -1.178, which is well below the already low national average of -0.109. This result confirms a healthy and consistent approach to authorship that aligns with the national context. The absence of risk signals suggests that authorship practices are transparent and accountable, effectively distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in 'Big Science' and potentially problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby ensuring individual accountability.
Rzeszow University of Technology demonstrates notable institutional resilience, with a low Z-score of -0.004 that effectively mitigates a risk more pronounced at the national level (0.400). This indicates a healthy balance where the institution's scientific prestige is not overly dependent on external partners for impact. The data strongly suggests that its high-impact research results from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring the long-term sustainability and structural integrity of its scientific contributions.
With a Z-score of -1.188, significantly lower than the national average of -0.611, the institution fosters a responsible and balanced research environment. This low-profile consistency with the national standard indicates that there is a healthy equilibrium between productivity and quality. The absence of this risk signal suggests the institution is not exposed to dynamics such as coercive authorship or authorship assigned without meaningful participation, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
The institution displays a commendable preventive isolation from national trends, with a Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.344. This indicates that the university does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding excessive dependence on its in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, which is essential for limiting conflicts of interest, enhancing global visibility, and preventing the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.
The institution's Z-score of 0.347 reveals a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.026. This value serves as an alert for the potential practice of fragmenting coherent studies into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice of 'salami slicing' can distort the available scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the publication of significant, consolidated new knowledge over sheer volume.
