| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.812 | -0.712 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.418 | -0.136 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.354 | 0.355 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.801 | 0.639 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.015 | 0.057 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.177 | 0.824 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.696 | -0.259 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
0.407 | 0.842 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.846 | 0.136 |
The Technical University of Cluj-Napoca presents a globally balanced integrity profile, with an Overall Score of -0.075 that indicates a solid foundation of responsible research practices, albeit with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in its capacity for intellectual leadership, with a very low dependency on external collaborations for impact, and maintains excellent pre-publication quality controls, as evidenced by a minimal rate of retracted output. These strengths are complemented by prudent management of authorship practices. However, this positive landscape is contrasted by medium-risk indicators in Institutional Self-Citation, Redundant Output, and publication in Discontinued Journals, which are notably higher than the national average and suggest vulnerabilities in citation habits and dissemination strategies. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university excels in several key areas, ranking as the top institution in Romania for Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, and Earth and Planetary Sciences, and second for both Mathematics and Physics and Astronomy. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—particularly those related to potential impact inflation and questionable publication channels—could challenge the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. To secure its leadership position, the university is advised to leverage its clear governance strengths to develop targeted policies and training that address these vulnerabilities, thereby ensuring its impressive scientific output is built upon an unimpeachable foundation of integrity.
With an institutional Z-score of -0.812, which is below the national average of -0.712, the university demonstrates a prudent and well-managed approach to researcher affiliations. This result suggests that the institution's processes are managed with more rigor than the national standard. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's controlled rate indicates a low risk of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reflecting clear and transparent collaboration policies.
The university exhibits an exceptional record in publication reliability, with a Z-score of -0.418, positioning it in the very low-risk category and favorably below the national low-risk score of -0.136. This absence of risk signals aligns with and surpasses the national standard, pointing to highly effective quality control. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate significantly lower than the average, as seen here, is a strong indicator of a healthy integrity culture and robust methodological rigor, suggesting that systemic failures in pre-publication review are successfully avoided.
The institution shows a high exposure to risks associated with self-citation, with a Z-score of 1.354, considerably higher than the national average of 0.355. This indicates that the university is more prone to developing concerning citation patterns than its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny, warning of the risk of endogamous impact inflation that may not be recognized by the global community.
With a Z-score of 0.801, which is above the national average of 0.639, the university demonstrates a high exposure to the risks of publishing in discontinued journals. This pattern suggests a greater institutional sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its environment. A high proportion of publications in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production may be channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid predatory practices.
The university demonstrates notable institutional resilience in managing authorship, with a low-risk Z-score of -1.015 in a national context of medium risk (0.057). This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks prevalent in the country. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation and dilute accountability. The university's low score is a positive signal that it successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding transparency and individual responsibility in its research.
The institution shows a profound strength in its scientific autonomy, with a Z-score of -1.177, placing it in the very low-risk category and in stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.824. This result reflects a preventive isolation, where the university avoids the risk dynamics of dependency observed elsewhere in the country. A wide positive gap often signals that an institution's prestige is reliant on external partners. Here, the opposite is true: the university's excellence metrics are a direct result of its real internal capacity and intellectual leadership, ensuring a sustainable and structurally sound scientific impact.
The university maintains a prudent profile regarding author productivity, with a Z-score of -0.696, which is more controlled than the national average of -0.259. This indicates that the institution manages its research environment with more rigor than the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes can challenge the feasibility of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's low score suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, mitigating risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The university exhibits differentiated management of its own publication channels, with a Z-score of 0.407, which, while in the medium-risk category, is significantly lower than the national average of 0.842. This shows the center successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. In-house journals can create conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. The university's more moderate rate suggests a healthier balance between local dissemination and seeking independent external peer review, which helps mitigate the risk of academic endogamy and ensures its research undergoes competitive validation.
The institution displays high exposure to the risk of redundant publications, with a Z-score of 0.846, markedly higher than the national average of 0.136. This suggests the university is more prone to this practice than its environment. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This high value serves as an alert to the potential practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics, a dynamic that distorts scientific evidence and prioritizes volume over significant new knowledge.
