University of Food Technologies, Plovdiv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Food Technologies, Plovdiv, presents a profile of notable strengths in research governance alongside specific, critical vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of 0.482, the institution demonstrates robust control over key operational areas, showing very low risk in multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, impact dependency, and use of institutional journals. These results indicate a strong foundation of scientific independence and clear authorship policies. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by a significant-risk alert for publishing in discontinued journals and medium-risk signals for institutional self-citation and redundant output. These weaknesses suggest potential issues in publication strategy and internal validation practices that could undermine the institution's credibility. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a prominent national position in key thematic areas, particularly in Environmental Science (ranked 1st in Bulgaria) and Energy (ranked 2nd), as well as a strong standing in Agricultural and Biological Sciences. While the institution's mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified risks—especially the high rate of output in journals that fail to meet international quality standards—are in direct conflict with any mission predicated on academic excellence and societal responsibility. To secure its leadership in its areas of expertise, it is recommended that the university focuses on enhancing its publication due diligence and promoting a culture of external validation, thereby aligning its operational practices with its evident research strengths.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.234, a value indicating a near-total absence of risk, which contrasts favorably with the country's low-risk average of -0.068. This result demonstrates a clear and consistent approach to author affiliations that aligns with national standards while showing even greater control. This low-profile consistency is a positive indicator of administrative transparency. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The university's excellent performance in this area suggests that its researchers' affiliations are managed with integrity, avoiding any ambiguity or "affiliation shopping" and ensuring that institutional credit is claimed appropriately.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.353, the institution maintains a prudent profile, showing a lower incidence of retractions than the national average of -0.191. This suggests that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are more rigorous than the national standard. Retractions are complex events, and a low rate can signify responsible supervision and the effective correction of unintentional errors. The institution's performance indicates that its pre-publication review processes are functioning well, minimizing the risk of systemic failures in methodological rigor or research integrity that could otherwise lead to a higher volume of retracted work.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.839, placing it in the medium-risk category and notably above the national average of 1.380. This reveals a high exposure to this risk factor, suggesting the university is more prone to insular citation practices than its national peers. While some self-citation reflects the continuity of research lines, disproportionately high rates can signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university shows a Z-score of 3.766, a significant-risk value that represents a critical alert and a sharp accentuation of the vulnerability present in the national system (Z-score: 0.691). This finding indicates that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. Such a high rate constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks. It suggests an urgent need for enhanced information literacy and stricter policies to prevent the investment of resources in 'predatory' or low-quality publication practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.283, the institution demonstrates a state of preventive isolation from a risk that is present at a medium level nationally (Z-score: 0.149). This excellent result indicates that the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of author list inflation observed elsewhere in the country. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are normal, a high rate can indicate a dilution of individual accountability. The university's very low score is a strong signal of transparent and merit-based authorship practices, effectively avoiding issues like 'honorary' or political authorship.

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

The institution's Z-score of -1.693 is an indicator of exceptional strength, reflecting a state of preventive isolation from the national trend, where a medium-risk gap exists (Z-score: 0.831). A wide positive gap signals a dependency on external partners for impact, but this institution's negative score indicates the opposite: its scientific prestige is structural and driven by its own intellectual leadership. This result suggests that the university's excellence metrics are a product of genuine internal capacity, demonstrating a sustainable and independent research ecosystem where the institution successfully leads high-impact work.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.330 is within the low-risk range but signals an incipient vulnerability when compared to the even lower national average of -0.770. Although the risk is currently contained, this slight deviation warrants review before it escalates. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The university's score, while good, suggests that monitoring authorship practices is prudent to preemptively address any potential risks, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university achieves a Z-score of -0.268, a very low-risk value that signifies a state of preventive isolation from a common national vulnerability (country Z-score: 1.113). This result shows that the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment, choosing instead to publish in external venues. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The institution's commitment to external publication channels enhances its global visibility and confirms that its research undergoes standard competitive validation, avoiding the use of internal 'fast tracks' to inflate productivity.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 1.491, the institution shows high exposure to this medium-risk indicator, performing less favorably than the national average of 0.832. This suggests that the university is more prone than its peers to publishing fragmented research. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This value serves as an alert that such practices may be distorting the available scientific evidence and prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.