Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest demonstrates a solid overall integrity profile, with a global risk score of -0.215 that indicates a performance generally aligned with or exceeding national standards. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, signaling robust quality control and a focus on external validation. However, areas of vulnerability are evident in the medium-risk levels for Institutional Self-Citation and Redundant Output, which are notably higher than the national average and require strategic attention. These findings are particularly relevant given the university's strong national standing in key thematic areas such as Environmental Science, Energy, and Earth and Planetary Sciences, as reported by SCImago Institutions Rankings. To fully realize its mission as a "national centre for training new generations of specialists and conducting scientific research," it is crucial to address these integrity risks. Practices that suggest academic insularity or an overemphasis on publication volume could undermine the "quality educational and research services" central to its mission. By reinforcing a culture of external impact and substantive contribution, the university can ensure its scientific practices are as sound as its engineering principles, solidifying its leadership role in Romania's sustainable development.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score for multiple affiliations is -0.240, which, while low, is higher than the national average of -0.712. This suggests an incipient vulnerability, indicating that the university shows early signals of this risk factor that warrant review before they escalate. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the slight upward trend compared to the national context could signal emerging attempts to strategically inflate institutional credit. Monitoring this indicator is advisable to ensure that all affiliations reflect genuine and substantial collaborative contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.606, the university shows a near-total absence of retracted publications, performing significantly better than the already low national average of -0.136. This low-profile consistency demonstrates that the institution's quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective and align with the national standard for scientific integrity. A rate this low is a strong positive signal, suggesting that potential issues are addressed prior to publication and that there is a deeply embedded culture of methodological rigor, preventing the systemic failures that can lead to retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university exhibits a Z-score of 1.799 for institutional self-citation, a figure that indicates high exposure to this risk and is considerably above the national average of 0.355. This suggests that the institution is more prone to this behavior than its peers. While a certain level of self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, where academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for publishing in discontinued journals is 0.439, a medium-risk value that is nevertheless lower than the national average of 0.639. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the university appears to moderate a risk that is more common at the national level. Although any presence in such journals is a concern, the university's relative success in avoiding these channels suggests that its researchers exercise better due diligence in selecting dissemination media than their national counterparts. Continued efforts in information literacy are key to further reduce exposure to 'predatory' or low-quality practices and protect the institution's reputation.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university's Z-score of -0.753 for hyper-authored output is well within the low-risk range and contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.057. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk prevalent in the country. This low score suggests that the university effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby upholding standards of individual accountability and transparency in its publications.

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

With a Z-score of -0.018, the institution shows a negligible gap between its overall impact and the impact of research where it holds a leadership role, a result far superior to the medium-risk national average of 0.824. This is a clear sign of institutional resilience and scientific autonomy. It suggests that the university's prestige is not dependent on external partners but is generated by strong internal capacity and intellectual leadership. This balanced profile indicates that its excellence metrics are structural and sustainable, reflecting a genuine ability to drive high-impact research independently.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university has an exceptionally low Z-score of -1.413 for hyperprolific authors, placing it in the very low-risk category and well below the national average of -0.259. This low-profile consistency with national integrity standards is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment. The absence of extreme individual publication volumes suggests that the institution fosters a culture that prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer quantity, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 for output in its own journals is very low, demonstrating a clear case of preventive isolation from a risk that is more pronounced at the national level (country average of 0.842). This indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. By largely avoiding dependence on in-house journals, the institution sidesteps potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. This practice ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

For redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' the institution has a Z-score of 0.401, which is higher than the national average of 0.136 and signals a high exposure to this risk. This indicates that the university is more prone than its national peers to practices where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. This behavior not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the scientific record by prioritizing publication volume over the communication of significant, coherent new knowledge, a practice that requires immediate review and correction.