Obuda University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Obuda University presents a complex integrity profile, with an overall risk score of 1.604 indicating a medium level of exposure to questionable research practices. The institution demonstrates notable strengths in managing hyper-authorship and selecting reputable publication venues, reflecting sound governance in these areas. However, these are offset by significant vulnerabilities, particularly an alarming rate of output in its own institutional journals and an atypically high rate of retracted publications. These critical weaknesses directly challenge the university's mission to provide "high-level knowledge transfer" and uphold "civic values," as they suggest potential compromises in quality control and external validation. Despite these integrity risks, the university maintains a strong academic standing in key disciplines, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among the top national institutions in areas such as Earth and Planetary Sciences, Mathematics, Computer Science, and Engineering. To safeguard its reputation and fully align its practices with its mission of excellence, the university should prioritize a strategic review of its internal publication policies and pre-publication quality assurance mechanisms, transforming these current risks into future strengths.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The university's Z-score for multiple affiliations is 2.583, significantly higher than the national average of 0.726. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium risk band, the university's heightened score indicates a greater exposure to the dynamics behind this indicator. This suggests that the institution is more prone than its national peers to practices that could be interpreted as strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," moving beyond the scope of legitimate researcher mobility or standard partnerships. A review is warranted to ensure all affiliations are substantively justified and reflect genuine collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

A severe discrepancy exists between the university's Z-score of 1.648 (Significant Risk) and the country's low-risk score of -0.233. This atypical level of activity requires a deep integrity assessment, as it points to a potential systemic vulnerability. While some retractions reflect responsible error correction, a rate so far above the national norm suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing. This is a critical alert that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor could be compromising the institution's integrity culture, demanding immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of 1.270, the university shows a higher rate of institutional self-citation compared to the national average of 0.310. This indicates a greater institutional exposure to the risks of scientific isolation. While a certain level of self-citation is natural, this elevated rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic risks creating an endogamous impact that is inflated by internal citation patterns rather than validated by the broader global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.100 is slightly higher than the national average of -0.189, though both remain in a low-risk category. This minimal difference points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. While the overall institutional practice is strong, this small signal suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers. Ensuring they have the best tools to perform due diligence in selecting dissemination channels will help prevent any potential waste of resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publications and mitigate future reputational risks.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The university demonstrates institutional resilience in managing authorship, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.965 that contrasts favorably with the country's medium-risk score of 0.352. This suggests that the institution's control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks observed nationally. The university appears successful in distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration in "Big Science" contexts and problematic practices like 'honorary' or political authorship, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.

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

The university exhibits differentiated management in its collaborative impact, with a Z-score of 0.217, which is considerably lower than the national average of 0.826. Although both operate within a medium-risk framework, the university's smaller gap indicates it moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. This suggests that while the institution benefits from external partnerships, its scientific prestige is less dependent on exogenous factors and more reflective of its own structural capacity for intellectual leadership compared to its national peers.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

A moderate deviation is observed in the university's Z-score of 2.082 (Medium Risk) compared to the country's low-risk score of -0.462. This indicates the institution has a greater sensitivity to risk factors associated with extreme individual productivity than its peers. This pattern alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, and may signal underlying risks such as coercive authorship or data fragmentation. These dynamics prioritize metric performance over the integrity of the scientific record and warrant a review of authorship and productivity policies.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university's Z-score of 5.554 represents a significant risk and a dramatic accentuation of a vulnerability already present in the national system (Z-score of 0.703). This extremely high value is a critical red flag for academic endogamy, where the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This practice raises serious conflict-of-interest concerns, suggesting that a substantial portion of scientific production may be bypassing independent external peer review. Such dependence on internal channels limits global visibility and may indicate their use as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts without standard competitive validation, requiring urgent policy review.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 1.643, the university shows a higher exposure to redundant publication practices than the national average of 0.409, even though both are in the medium-risk category. This elevated score suggests a greater tendency within the institution to fragment data or engage in 'salami slicing.' This practice, where a single coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the peer-review system, prioritizing publication volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.