University Goce Delcev

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

University Goce Delcev demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, marked by a low aggregate risk score of 0.112. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low-risk levels for multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in its own journals. Furthermore, it effectively insulates itself from national trends of concern regarding retracted publications and hyper-authorship. However, strategic attention is required for two key vulnerabilities: a medium-risk exposure to publication in discontinued journals and, most critically, a significant-risk gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work where it holds intellectual leadership. These findings are particularly relevant given the University's strong performance in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, with notable positions in Earth and Planetary Sciences and Social Sciences. The identified risks, especially the dependency on external leadership for impact and the use of questionable publication channels, could challenge the core of its mission to "create and transfer knowledge" and uphold the "dignity of profession" and "highest human values." By addressing these specific vulnerabilities, the University can ensure its operational practices fully align with its mission of excellence and social responsibility, thereby solidifying its strong scientific foundation and enhancing its sustainable, independent contribution to society.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.490 is well below the national average of -0.950, indicating a complete absence of risk signals in this area, even when compared to an already low-risk national environment. This demonstrates an exemplary level of transparency and clarity in how researcher affiliations are reported. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal attempts to inflate institutional credit. The University's very low score confirms that its affiliations are managed with integrity, avoiding any suggestion of strategic "affiliation shopping" and reflecting a clear and honest representation of its collaborative network.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.118, the institution stands in stark contrast to the national average of 0.911, which signals a significant risk at the country level. This discrepancy suggests the University operates as an effective filter, maintaining robust internal controls that prevent the systemic issues potentially affecting its environment. Retractions are complex, but a high rate often points to failures in pre-publication quality control. The institution's low score is a positive indicator of a healthy integrity culture, suggesting that its supervision and methodological rigor are strong enough to act as a firewall against the recurring malpractice or integrity vulnerabilities observed nationally.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of -0.832 is lower than the national Z-score of -0.733, demonstrating a consistent and low-risk profile that aligns with the national standard. This indicates that the University's research is well-integrated into the broader scientific community, avoiding excessive self-validation. While some self-citation is natural, high rates can create 'echo chambers' and inflate impact through endogamous dynamics. The University’s very low rate confirms that its academic influence is validated by external scrutiny, reflecting genuine recognition from the global community rather than reliance on internal citation patterns.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.624 is slightly higher than the national average of 1.348, indicating a heightened exposure to this risk compared to its peers. This pattern suggests the University is more prone to channeling its research through questionable outlets. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, as it exposes the institution to severe reputational risks. This finding points to an urgent need to improve information literacy and reinforce policies that guide researchers away from 'predatory' or low-quality venues, ensuring resources are invested in credible and impactful science.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.480, which is notably better than the national Z-score of 0.363, a medium-risk value. This suggests that the University's internal control mechanisms successfully mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, which dilutes accountability. The institution's resilience in this area demonstrates a commitment to meaningful authorship, effectively filtering out the national tendency toward practices that could include 'honorary' or political attributions and preserving the transparency of individual contributions.

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

With a Z-score of 4.360, the institution shows a critical risk level that significantly amplifies the vulnerability already present in the national system, where the average score is 2.167. This extremely wide positive gap—where global impact is high but the impact of research led by the institution itself is low—signals a severe sustainability risk. It suggests the University's scientific prestige is overwhelmingly dependent and exogenous, not structural. This result urgently invites a deep, strategic reflection on whether its excellence metrics are derived from genuine internal capacity or from a subordinate role in collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership, a dependency that threatens its long-term scientific autonomy and mission.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is significantly lower than the national average of -1.166, indicating a complete absence of risk signals and performance that surpasses the already secure national standard. This demonstrates a healthy balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to risks like coercive authorship or 'salami slicing.' The University's exceptionally low score in this area suggests its research environment promotes substantive contributions over sheer volume, effectively preventing practices that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.541, which falls into the medium-risk category. This indicates a preventive isolation, where the University avoids the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While in-house journals can be useful, excessive dependence on them creates conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The University's minimal reliance on its own journals demonstrates a commitment to external validation and global visibility, ensuring its scientific production is assessed through standard competitive channels rather than potentially inflated through internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.259, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.430. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants review before it escalates. Massive bibliographic overlap between publications can indicate data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to artificially inflate productivity. Although the current risk is low, the institution shows slightly more of this activity than its national peers, suggesting a need for proactive monitoring to ensure that the emphasis remains on publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.