Adam Mickiewicz University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Adam Mickiewicz University demonstrates a robust and generally healthy scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.104 that indicates performance slightly above the baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional governance over publication channels and authorship practices, showing very low risk in areas such as output in discontinued or institutional journals, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications. These strengths are particularly notable as they represent a clear positive deviation from national trends. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate rate of retracted output, a tendency towards institutional self-citation, and a noticeable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic excellence is concentrated in Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Psychology, and Veterinary sciences. The identified integrity risks, particularly those related to retractions and self-citation, could challenge the university's mission to pursue the "search for truth" with "unhampered freedom," as they may create a perception of internal echo chambers or lapses in quality control. To fully align its operational reality with its aspirational mission, the university is encouraged to leverage its strong governance foundations to develop targeted strategies that mitigate these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its commitment to excellence and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.827, a value situated comfortably below the national average of -0.755. This comparison suggests that the university manages its collaborative and affiliation processes with a higher degree of rigor than the national standard. The data indicates a prudent and well-controlled approach, where multiple affiliations reflect legitimate researcher mobility and partnerships rather than signaling strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This responsible management of affiliations reinforces the transparency and clarity of the university's collaborative footprint.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.605, the institution shows a moderate risk level that deviates from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.058. This greater sensitivity to retraction events compared to its national peers warrants a closer examination. Retractions are complex, but a rate significantly higher than the norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture could point to recurring methodological issues or a need for enhanced supervision, requiring immediate qualitative verification by management to prevent potential damage to its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 1.110, which is elevated compared to the national average of 0.660, although both fall within a medium-risk context. This indicates that the institution is more exposed to this risk than its peers, reflecting a pattern of internal citation that is more pronounced than the systemic norm. Such a high rate can signal the formation of scientific 'echo chambers,' where research is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence might 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 -0.445 is in the very low-risk category, contrasting favorably with the country's low-risk score of -0.195. This result demonstrates a consistent and effective policy of due diligence in selecting publication venues. The absence of significant risk signals aligns with, and even surpasses, the national standard, indicating that the university's researchers are successfully avoiding channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This protects the institution from reputational harm and ensures research resources are not wasted on low-quality or predatory practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.616, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is more robust than the national average of -0.109. This suggests a prudent and rigorous approach to authorship attribution. The observed patterns do not indicate issues with author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. Instead, they point toward a culture where authorship is handled responsibly, effectively distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' authorships.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 0.748 in this area, a medium-risk signal that is notably higher than the national average of 0.400. This high exposure suggests that the university's scientific prestige is more dependent on external collaborations where it does not hold intellectual leadership. While partnering is essential, this wide gap signals a potential sustainability risk, indicating that its measured excellence may be more a result of strategic positioning in external projects than a reflection of its own structural research capacity. This finding invites a strategic reflection on how to foster and elevate the impact of internally-led research initiatives.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.267 places it in the very low-risk category, a significantly better position than the national low-risk score of -0.611. This absence of risk signals is consistent with a healthy research environment. The data strongly suggests that the university fosters a culture that prioritizes quality over sheer quantity, avoiding the imbalances that can lead to coercive authorship or other practices that compromise the integrity of the scientific record. This indicates a well-regulated and balanced approach to academic productivity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.237, the institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (0.344). This preventive stance is a significant strength. By not relying heavily on its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its research undergoes independent external peer review. This practice not only strengthens the credibility of its output but also enhances its global visibility and competitiveness, showing a clear commitment to objective validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.520 signifies a very low risk of redundant publication, a stark and positive contrast to the medium-risk trend seen across the country (0.026). This demonstrates a clear institutional choice to not replicate the risk dynamics prevalent in its environment. The data suggests a strong focus on producing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting research into 'minimal publishable units.' This commitment to substance over volume upholds the integrity of the scientific evidence base and respects the resources of the peer-review system.