University of Bialystok

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Bialystok presents a robust and commendable scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.004 that indicates a general alignment with expected international standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over practices such as institutional self-citation, redundant output, and publishing in discontinued journals, where it significantly outperforms national averages. This demonstrates a strong internal culture of ethical research and a clear commitment to quality. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by two significant vulnerabilities: a high dependency on external partners for research impact and an over-reliance on its own institutional journals for dissemination. These risks directly challenge the university's mission to "provide the best possible conditions to study and research," as true excellence requires not only state-of-the-art facilities but also the development of independent intellectual leadership and global scientific validation. While the institution shows notable strength in thematic areas such as Arts and Humanities, Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics, and Psychology according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, addressing these strategic dependencies is crucial. By focusing on fostering internally-led, high-impact projects and diversifying its publication channels, the University of Bialystok can fully leverage its integrity strengths to build a more sustainable and globally recognized research ecosystem.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution demonstrates a very low risk profile with a Z-score of -1.253, which is even more favorable than the country's low-risk score of -0.755. This result indicates a healthy and transparent approach to academic collaboration, showing no signs of risk. The absence of concerning signals is consistent with the national standard, confirming that the university's affiliation practices are well-governed. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's excellent score suggests its collaborative activities are organic and not driven by "affiliation shopping," reflecting a solid commitment to accurate academic representation.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.371, the institution maintains a low-risk profile that is notably more rigorous than the national standard of -0.058. This prudent performance suggests that the university's quality control mechanisms are more effective than the national average. A high rate of retractions can alert to a systemic vulnerability in an institution's integrity culture or a lack of methodological rigor. In this case, the university's low score indicates that its pre-publication review and supervision processes are robust, effectively minimizing the occurrence of errors that could lead to retractions and reinforcing its commitment to producing reliable science.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University of Bialystok shows an exceptionally low Z-score of -0.789, placing it in the very low-risk category and demonstrating a significant preventive isolation from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score: 0.660). This strong divergence highlights the institution's success in avoiding scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' A high rate of self-citation can suggest that an institution's academic influence is oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the global community. The university's score, however, points to a culture of broad external engagement and a reliance on international scrutiny, ensuring its research impact is genuine and globally recognized.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.427 reflects a very low-risk profile, aligning well with and slightly improving upon the country's low-risk score of -0.195. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university exercises appropriate due diligence in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in discontinued journals can be a critical alert, suggesting that research is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. The university's favorable score demonstrates a strong commitment to disseminating its work through reputable channels, thereby protecting its reputation and ensuring its research contributes to credible scientific discourse.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.255, indicating a medium level of risk that moderately deviates from the low-risk national average of -0.109. This suggests the university is more sensitive to factors leading to hyper-authorship than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a high score outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability. This signal warrants a review to ensure that authorship practices are transparent and to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and the potential inclusion of 'honorary' authors, thereby safeguarding the principle of meaningful contribution.

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

With a Z-score of 3.550, the institution shows a significant risk level that sharply accentuates the medium-risk vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score: 0.400). This wide positive gap signals a critical sustainability risk, suggesting that the university's scientific prestige is highly dependent and exogenous, not structural. A high value in this indicator implies that excellence metrics may result from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own internal capacity. This finding calls for an urgent strategic reflection on how to foster and promote research where the university's own scholars lead, ensuring long-term scientific autonomy and impact.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, demonstrating a stronger control over this phenomenon than the already low-risk national average of -0.611. This alignment with a low-risk environment indicates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. The university's very low score suggests that its research culture prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the pursuit of sheer volume, fostering a sustainable and credible academic environment.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The University of Bialystok has a Z-score of 3.325, which, while categorized as medium risk, indicates a significantly higher exposure compared to the national average of 0.344. This suggests the institution is much more prone to relying on its own journals than its peers. This practice raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party, and can lead to academic endogamy where production bypasses independent external peer review. This high exposure warns that internal channels might be used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation, potentially limiting the global visibility and impact of its research.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.488, the institution exhibits a very low-risk profile, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk trend observed at the national level (Z-score: 0.026). This demonstrates a clear institutional commitment to producing substantive work over fragmented publications. A high rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' indicates a practice of dividing studies into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity, which distorts scientific evidence. The university's excellent score reflects a mature research culture that values the generation of significant new knowledge and respects the integrity of the scientific publishing system.