| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.210 | -0.755 |
|
Retracted Output
|
2.878 | -0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.335 | 0.660 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.278 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.846 | -0.109 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.682 | 0.400 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.297 | -0.611 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.344 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.577 | 0.026 |
The University of Szczecin presents a moderate overall risk profile with a score of 0.510, characterized by a combination of exceptional strengths in governance and a critical vulnerability requiring immediate attention. The institution demonstrates a solid foundation of integrity, with very low risk signals in the Rate of Multiple Affiliations, Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, Rate of Output in Institutional Journals, and Rate of Redundant Output. These results point to robust internal controls and a culture that discourages problematic publication practices. However, this strong performance is contrasted by a significant risk level in the Rate of Retracted Output, which is a severe outlier compared to the national average and represents the primary threat to the university's scientific reputation. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university showcases notable academic strengths, ranking prominently within Poland in fields such as Chemistry (11th), Psychology (15th), Arts and Humanities (16th), and Mathematics (17th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the high rate of retractions directly challenges universal academic values of excellence and rigor. By focusing strategic attention on reinforcing pre-publication quality control and research integrity training, the University of Szczecin can mitigate this critical risk, protect its reputation, and fully leverage its considerable academic strengths across its leading disciplines.
The institution demonstrates a very low-risk profile in this area, with an absence of warning signals that is even more pronounced than the national standard. The university's Z-score of -1.210 is well below the country's already low score of -0.755, indicating exemplary and transparent affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate confirms it effectively avoids strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” aligning its performance with the highest standards of research integrity.
This indicator reveals a severe discrepancy between the institution and the national context, signaling atypical risk activity that warrants a deep integrity assessment. The university's Z-score of 2.878 stands in stark contrast to the national average of -0.058. Retractions are complex events, and some can result from the honest correction of errors. However, a rate significantly higher than the global average alerts to a critical vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
Although both the institution and the country show a medium level of risk in this area, the university demonstrates differentiated management, effectively moderating a risk that appears more common at the national level. With a Z-score of 0.335, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.660, the institution shows better control over this practice. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, but the university's more moderate value suggests a healthier balance. This reduces the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' and ensures its academic influence is validated by the broader global community rather than being oversized by internal dynamics.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile regarding the selection of publication venues, managing its processes with more rigor than the national standard. The university's Z-score of -0.278 is lower than the country's average of -0.195, indicating a more cautious approach. This suggests that the institution's researchers are exercising sound due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, thereby minimizing exposure to journals that may not meet international ethical or quality standards and protecting the university from associated reputational risks.
The university maintains a prudent profile in authorship practices, showing more rigor than the national standard. Its Z-score of -0.846 is significantly lower than the country's average of -0.109. This low rate indicates that the institution's publication patterns are not suggestive of author list inflation or the dilution of individual accountability. The data confirms that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices, fostering a culture of transparency and meaningful contribution.
The institution shows a high exposure to risks associated with dependency on external collaborations for its scientific impact, a vulnerability that is more pronounced than in the rest of the country. The university's Z-score of 0.682 is considerably higher than the national average of 0.400. This wide positive gap—where overall impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution is comparatively low—signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific prestige may be dependent and exogenous, inviting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership.
The institution's practices align perfectly with a low-risk national environment, showing a complete absence of signals related to hyperprolific authorship. With a Z-score of -1.297, which is even lower than the national average of -0.611, the university demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and scientific quality. This result indicates that the institution is not exposed to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, reinforcing a culture where meaningful intellectual contribution is prioritized over the inflation of publication metrics.
The university demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from national trends concerning publication in institutional journals. Its Z-score of -0.268 reflects a very low-risk practice, starkly contrasting with the medium-risk national average of 0.344. This indicates that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding excessive dependence on its own journals, the university mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review and gains global visibility rather than using internal channels as 'fast tracks' for publication.
The institution effectively isolates itself from the risk of redundant publications, a practice more prevalent at the national level. The university's Z-score of -0.577 is in the very low-risk category, whereas the country's average of 0.026 falls into the medium-risk range. This preventive disconnection shows that the university's research culture does not support data fragmentation or 'salami slicing' to artificially inflate productivity. This commitment to publishing complete, coherent studies strengthens the integrity of the scientific record and avoids overburdening the peer-review system with minimally significant outputs.
