Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies presents a robust and generally positive scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.058 that indicates a performance well-aligned with expected standards. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and hyperprolific authorship, suggesting a strong culture of transparency and external validation. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by a critical vulnerability: a significant dependency on external collaborations for research impact. This strategic risk, alongside medium-level alerts in publishing practices, requires focused attention. These findings are particularly relevant given the institution's outstanding leadership in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, which place it at the forefront in Romania for Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Arts and Humanities; and Energy, and as a top contender in Business, Management and Accounting. While these rankings affirm its excellence, the high reliance on external leadership for impact could, in the long term, challenge its core mission to provide "in-depth knowledge" and train professionals who can lead. To fully realize its mission, the Academy should leverage its strong integrity framework to foster greater intellectual autonomy and ensure its prestigious reputation is built upon a sustainable, internally-driven research capacity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is -0.920, significantly lower than the national average of -0.712. This result demonstrates a commendable absence of risk signals, reflecting a pattern of low-profile consistency that aligns with the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The Academy's very low score indicates that its affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed, avoiding any suggestion of "affiliation shopping" and reinforcing a culture of clear and honest academic crediting.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.334, the institution displays a lower rate of retracted publications compared to the national average of -0.136. This suggests a prudent profile where internal quality control mechanisms are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate can signify responsible supervision and the effective correction of unintentional errors. The Academy's performance indicates that its pre-publication quality controls are functioning effectively, minimizing the incidence of systemic failures and reinforcing confidence in its research integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.159, a stark contrast to the national average of 0.355. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the Academy successfully avoids the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the national trend points towards a potential for 'echo chambers.' The Academy's very low score is a strong positive signal, indicating that its research is validated by the broader international community rather than through internal dynamics. This external scrutiny confirms that the institution's academic influence is based on global recognition, not endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.381 is below the national average of 0.639, both of which are in the medium-risk range. This indicates a pattern of differentiated management, where the Academy demonstrates a greater ability to moderate risks that appear to be common across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. While the institution is not immune to this risk, its better-than-average performance suggests that its researchers exercise more caution, though there remains a need for enhanced information literacy to completely avoid channeling work through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.565, the institution shows a low-risk profile, standing in contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.057. This points to strong institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate systemic risks present in the national environment. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high rate can indicate author list inflation. The Academy's low score suggests that its authorship practices are well-regulated, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability.

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

The institution presents a Z-score of 3.625, a figure that is significantly higher than the national medium-risk average of 0.824. This disparity signals a risk accentuation, where the Academy amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. A wide positive gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is heavily dependent on external partners and may not be structural. This high value is a critical alert for sustainability, indicating that its impressive excellence metrics may result more from strategic positioning in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, rather than from its own internal capacity. This dependency poses a long-term risk to its autonomy and reputation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.083 is exceptionally low, especially when compared to the national average of -0.259. This reflects a state of low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and even improves upon the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The Academy's very low score is a strong indicator of a healthy balance between quantity and quality, suggesting that it is effectively preventing risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 0.494, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is lower than the national average of 0.842, though both fall within the medium-risk category. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the Academy is more effectively moderating the risks of academic endogamy that are more pronounced at the national level. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. The Academy's more controlled rate indicates a healthier balance, though the medium-risk signal warrants continued monitoring to ensure that internal channels do not bypass the rigorous, independent peer review necessary for global visibility and validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for redundant output is 0.438, which is notably higher than the national average of 0.136, even though both are in the medium-risk range. This indicates a high exposure, suggesting the center is more prone to showing alert signals for this practice than its national peers. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications often points to 'salami slicing,' where a single study is fragmented into minimal units to inflate productivity. This value serves as a warning that the institution may be fostering a culture that prioritizes publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge, a practice that can distort scientific evidence and overburden the review system.