| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.259 | 0.229 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.296 | 0.034 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.281 | 0.386 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
1.887 | -0.153 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.735 | 0.375 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.763 | 0.862 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.401 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
3.297 | 1.180 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.289 | -0.059 |
The University of Defence demonstrates a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.455 that reflects both significant strengths and specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution showcases notable research capabilities, particularly in areas where it holds a strong national position according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, such as Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (ranked 7th in the Czech Republic) and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (ranked 9th). However, this profile is contrasted by vulnerabilities in publication practices, including elevated rates of institutional self-citation, output in discontinued journals, and publication in its own journals. These risks could potentially undermine the core mission of guaranteeing the "development of military cognition" and supporting top-level management, as a perception of academic endogamy or insufficient external validation could compromise the credibility and authority of its scientific output. By proactively addressing these specific integrity indicators, the University can fortify its reputation for excellence, ensure its research is built on a foundation of unimpeachable integrity, and more effectively fulfill its critical strategic role.
The institution shows a low rate of multiple affiliations (Z-score: -0.259) compared to the national average (Z-score: 0.229), suggesting the presence of effective control mechanisms that mitigate broader national trends. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as the university avoids the systemic risks associated with this indicator. By maintaining a lower rate, the institution reduces the possibility of its affiliations being used strategically to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby reinforcing a culture of clear and transparent academic contribution.
The university's rate of retracted output (Z-score: -0.296) is notably lower than the national figure (Z-score: 0.034), indicating a strong performance in this area. This positive differential suggests that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust, acting as a resilient filter against the systemic risks observed nationally. A lower retraction rate points to a healthy integrity culture and sound methodological rigor, effectively preventing the kind of recurring errors or malpractice that can lead to systemic failures in pre-publication review.
The institution's rate of self-citation (Z-score: 1.281) is significantly higher than the national average (Z-score: 0.386), indicating a greater exposure to this particular risk. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this elevated rate warns of potential scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This high value suggests a risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.
The university exhibits a moderate deviation from the national norm, with a Z-score of 1.887 for output in discontinued journals, which contrasts sharply with the country's low-risk score of -0.153. This indicates that the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, suggesting that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and signals an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The institution demonstrates a prudent approach to authorship, with a hyper-authorship rate (Z-score: -0.735) well below the national average (Z-score: 0.375). This indicates strong institutional resilience against the national trend of potential author list inflation. By maintaining a lower rate outside of "Big Science" contexts, the university effectively distinguishes its collaborative practices from potential 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby reinforcing individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The university shows a healthy balance in its collaborative impact, with a Z-score of -0.763 that contrasts positively with the national average of 0.862. This suggests that the impact of research led by the institution is strong and not overly dependent on external partners. This demonstrates institutional resilience and structural scientific prestige, indicating that its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than a strategic reliance on collaborations where it plays a secondary role.
The institution presents a very low rate of hyperprolific authors, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is even more favorable than the already low national average of -0.401. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals aligns with and improves upon the national standard. This lack of extreme individual publication volumes suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution, thereby upholding the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of 3.297, the university's reliance on its own journals is markedly higher than the national average of 1.180, indicating a high exposure to this risk. While in-house journals are valuable for local dissemination, this excessive dependence raises potential conflicts of interest and warns of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This practice limits global visibility and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs without standard competitive validation, a dynamic that warrants careful review.
The institution's rate of redundant output (Z-score: 0.289) shows a moderate deviation from the national standard (Z-score: -0.059), suggesting a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This elevated value alerts to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This dynamic not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.
