| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.063 | -0.823 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.268 | -0.096 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.610 | -0.210 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
0.483 | 0.075 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.489 | -0.336 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.178 | 0.912 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.248 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
5.888 | 0.153 |
|
Redundant Output
|
1.583 | 0.031 |
The International University of Sarajevo (IUS) presents a profile of solid scientific integrity, marked by significant strengths in research culture but punctuated by critical, high-impact vulnerabilities that require immediate strategic intervention. With an overall score of 0.590, the university demonstrates exceptional control over authorship practices, reflected in its very low risk for hyperprolific authors and prudent management of retractions and self-citation, often outperforming national benchmarks. These strengths are foundational to its notable success in key thematic areas, including top national rankings in Computer Science and Engineering according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive outlook is severely undermined by an extremely high rate of publication in its own institutional journals, a practice that suggests significant academic endogamy. This, coupled with elevated risks in redundant publications and reliance on discontinued journals, directly challenges the university's mission to "produce science...for the benefit of humanity" and educate "free-thinking, open-minded individuals." Such insular practices can limit global impact and stifle the external validation necessary for true academic excellence and international cooperation. By developing clear policies to promote publication in high-quality, external venues and enhancing oversight on research dissemination, IUS can align its operational integrity with its academic strengths, thereby fully realizing its vision as a leading international institution.
The university's Z-score of -0.063 for multiple affiliations, while still in a low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.823, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This slight divergence from a national context with very low activity suggests the emergence of practices that warrant review before they escalate. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this subtle uptick could be an early indicator of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” A proactive review of affiliation policies is recommended to ensure they remain aligned with transparent and ethical collaborative practices.
With a Z-score of -0.268, which is lower than the national average of -0.096, the university demonstrates a prudent and rigorous profile in managing its published output. This indicates that the institution's quality control mechanisms prior to publication appear more effective than the national standard. A low rate of retractions suggests a healthy integrity culture, where potential methodological errors or malpractice are likely identified and corrected internally, safeguarding the scientific record and reinforcing the institution's commitment to reliable research.
The institution exhibits a prudent profile with a Z-score of -0.610, significantly below the national average of -0.210. This demonstrates robust engagement with the global scientific community and a low risk of operating in a scientific 'echo chamber.' A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of research lines, but this particularly low value confirms that the institution's academic influence is validated by external scrutiny rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, which is a strong indicator of healthy, outward-looking research programs.
The university shows a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals, with a Z-score of 0.483 that is considerably more pronounced than the national average of 0.075. This disparity constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence exercised in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This exposes the institution to severe reputational risks and suggests an urgent need for information literacy and training to prevent the misallocation of research efforts into 'predatory' or low-quality venues.
The university maintains a prudent profile in its authorship patterns, with a Z-score of -0.489 that is more conservative than the national figure of -0.336. This suggests that authorship practices are well-controlled and less susceptible to inflation. The data indicates that extensive author lists are likely confined to disciplines where they are legitimate and necessary, effectively mitigating the risk of 'honorary' authorships and ensuring that individual accountability and transparency are maintained across its research output.
A notable high exposure is evident in the gap between the institution's overall publication impact and the impact of work where it holds a leadership role. The university's Z-score of 2.178 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.912. This wide positive gap signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige may be heavily dependent on contributions to collaborations led by external partners. This finding invites a strategic reflection on whether its current excellence metrics are the result of genuine internal capacity or a strategic positioning in partnerships where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a crucial factor for long-term scientific autonomy.
The university demonstrates total operational silence in this indicator, with a Z-score of -1.413 that is even more favorable than the already low national average of -1.248. This complete absence of risk signals points to a healthy research environment where the balance between quantity and quality is well-maintained. It strongly suggests that the institutional culture does not incentivize practices such as coercive authorship or excessive data fragmentation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record and promoting meaningful intellectual contributions from its researchers.
This indicator reveals a critical vulnerability, as the university's Z-score of 5.888 represents a significant risk that sharply accentuates a trend only moderately present at the national level (Z-score of 0.153). This extreme reliance on in-house journals raises serious concerns about academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest, where the institution acts as both judge and party. Such a high value warns that a substantial volume of research might be bypassing rigorous, independent external peer review, which limits global visibility and may indicate the use of internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.
The institution exhibits high exposure to redundant publications, with a Z-score of 1.583 that stands in stark contrast to the negligible national average of 0.031. This elevated value alerts to the possible practice of 'salami slicing,' where a coherent body of research is fragmented into the smallest publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific evidence base, prioritizing publication volume over the dissemination of significant, cohesive new knowledge.
