Univerzitet Singidunum

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Univerzitet Singidunum presents a complex scientific integrity profile, characterized by a significant contrast between operational strengths and critical vulnerabilities. With an overall score of 0.375, the institution demonstrates notable areas of excellence, particularly in its capacity for independent intellectual leadership and its commitment to external publication channels, which are significant assets. However, these strengths are overshadowed by a critical level of institutional self-citation and medium-risk signals in retractions, discontinued journal usage, and hyperprolific authorship. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a leadership position within Serbia, ranking #1 in Energy and Engineering, and #2 in Computer Science and Mathematics. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these high-risk indicators pose a direct threat to the universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility. The pronounced inward focus suggested by the self-citation rate could undermine the credibility of its nationally recognized thematic strengths. To secure its reputation and ensure its research impact is both genuine and sustainable, it is recommended that the institution prioritize a comprehensive review of its citation and publication practices, aligning them with its evident capacity for high-quality, independent research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -0.295, while the national average for Serbia is -0.865. This result indicates a slight divergence from the national context. While the country as a whole shows virtually no signals of this risk, the university displays a minor but detectable level of activity. This subtle deviation warrants observation, as disproportionately high rates of multiple affiliations can sometimes signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," a practice that does not appear to be prevalent in the rest of the country.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.342 compared to the national average of 0.016, the institution demonstrates a higher exposure to this risk factor than its peers, even though both operate within a medium-risk context. This suggests that the university is more prone to the circumstances that lead to retractions. A rate significantly higher than the national average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, suggesting that its quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more systemically than elsewhere in the country and indicating that possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor may require immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score of 4.187 is a critical outlier when compared to the national average of 0.426. This finding indicates a severe accentuation of a risk that is only moderately present in the national system. Rather than reflecting a common national practice, the university amplifies this vulnerability to a significant degree. Such a disproportionately high rate signals a concerning scientific isolation, creating an 'echo chamber' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice of endogamous impact inflation presents an urgent risk, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 0.917 is substantially higher than the national average of 0.056, indicating a high exposure to this risk. Although both the university and the country fall within a medium-risk category, the institution is far more prone to publishing in such outlets. This constitutes a critical alert regarding its due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of its scientific production is being channeled through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and suggesting an urgent need for information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.408, the institution demonstrates institutional resilience against a risk that is more prevalent nationally (country Z-score of 0.135). While the national context shows a medium-level tendency towards this behavior, the university maintains a low-risk profile, suggesting its internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating systemic risks. This indicates that the institution's academic culture successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship practices, thereby preserving individual accountability and transparency in its research output.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -5.139, a figure that signals preventive isolation from the national trend, where the country average is 1.204. While the national environment suggests a reliance on external partners for impact, the university does not replicate these risk dynamics. A strongly negative value here is a sign of exceptional strength, suggesting that the institution's scientific prestige is dependent on its own structural capacity, not on exogenous factors. This result indicates that its excellence metrics stem from real internal capabilities where the institution exercises intellectual leadership, ensuring its scientific impact is both sustainable and autonomous.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of 2.174 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk Z-score of -0.382. This shows that the university has a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its national peers. The presence of extreme individual publication volumes challenges the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over the integrity of the scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a clear preventive isolation from the national tendency (country Z-score of 0.912). While the national system shows a medium risk of academic endogamy, the university does not replicate this dynamic, maintaining a very low-risk profile. This indicates a strong commitment to external validation, as the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest by not relying on its own journals. This practice ensures its scientific production bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and undergoes independent external peer review, which enhances its global visibility and credibility.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of -0.086 is in close alignment with the national average of -0.120, indicating a state of statistical normality. The risk level is low and as expected for its context and size, showing that its practices are synchronized with the national environment. This suggests that the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, known as 'salami slicing,' is not a significant concern. The institution's management of bibliographic overlap aligns with typical patterns, posing no immediate threat to the integrity of the scientific evidence it produces.