University of Belgrade

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Belgrade demonstrates a balanced scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.027 that aligns closely with the global average, indicating the absence of significant systemic deviations. The institution exhibits notable strengths in its control over publication practices, effectively mitigating risks associated with retracted output, hyperprolific authorship, and redundant publications, often performing better than the national standard. However, areas requiring strategic monitoring include a higher-than-average rate of hyper-authored output and a significant gap between the impact of its total output and that of research under its direct leadership. This solid scientific foundation is reflected in its leadership position, as confirmed by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, where it ranks as the top institution in Serbia and among the elite in Eastern Europe in key areas such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Dentistry, and Computer Science. The University's mission to set the "strongest standards" and foster "leadership" is well-supported by its areas of integrity, yet the identified vulnerabilities—particularly the dependency on external partners for impact and potential dilution of authorship accountability—could challenge the goal of developing autonomous leadership and upholding the highest ethical values. The University of Belgrade is therefore well-positioned to leverage its considerable thematic strengths and robust integrity controls to address these specific vulnerabilities, thereby reinforcing its mission and solidifying its role as a regional leader in ethical and impactful research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University's Z-score of -0.805, while low, signals a slight divergence from the national context, where the score is a very low -0.865. This suggests the institution is beginning to show early signals of this activity that are not yet apparent in the rest of the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this metric warrants observation. An upward trend could indicate strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through "affiliation shopping," and monitoring this indicator ensures that collaborative practices remain transparent and authentically reflect research contributions.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a low Z-score of -0.324, the University of Belgrade stands in positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.016. This gap demonstrates strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal quality control and supervision mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the environmental trend indicates a healthy integrity culture. It suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust, successfully identifying and correcting potential errors, thereby preventing the systemic failures that can lead to a high volume of retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score of 0.377 is nearly identical to the national average of 0.426, indicating that its citation practices are in lockstep with a systemic pattern across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this medium level of activity suggests a shared tendency within the national research ecosystem that could foster scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This alignment warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence may be reinforced by internal dynamics rather than validated by broader global community recognition.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

With a Z-score of 0.024, the University demonstrates more effective control over publication channels than the national average of 0.056. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more common in its environment. A lower rate of publication in discontinued journals is a critical sign of due diligence, indicating that researchers are better equipped to identify and avoid predatory or low-quality outlets. This protects the institution from severe reputational risks and ensures that scientific resources are channeled toward media that meet international ethical and quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

The University's Z-score of 0.648 is significantly higher than the national average of 0.135, revealing a high exposure to this risk factor. This indicates that the institution is more prone to producing publications with extensive author lists than its national peers. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' disciplines, a high rate outside these contexts can signal author list inflation, which dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This discrepancy warrants an internal review to distinguish between necessary massive collaborations and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.

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

The University's Z-score of 1.763 is notably higher than the national average of 1.204, highlighting a greater institutional exposure to this vulnerability. This wide positive gap suggests that the institution's overall scientific prestige is more heavily dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This signals a potential sustainability risk, as it raises questions about whether its high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in partnerships led by external entities. It invites reflection on fostering more autonomous, high-impact research to ensure its scientific excellence is structural and not just exogenous.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The University's Z-score of -0.306, while low, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.382, pointing to an incipient vulnerability. Although the overall risk is minimal, the institution shows slightly more activity in this area than its peers, which warrants review before it escalates. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This slight elevation serves as a reminder to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality, guarding against risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 0.502, the University of Belgrade shows a significantly lower reliance on its own journals compared to the national average of 0.912. This demonstrates effective, differentiated management that successfully moderates a practice more prevalent in the country. By limiting its dependence on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass independent external peer review. This approach enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive channels.

Rate of Redundant Output

The University's Z-score of -0.259 is notably lower than the national average of -0.120, reflecting a prudent and rigorous approach to publication. This superior performance indicates that the institution's research processes are managed with greater rigor than the national standard. A low rate of massive bibliographic overlap between publications is a strong indicator of a commitment to scientific substance over volume. It suggests the institution discourages the practice of 'salami slicing'—dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units—and instead prioritizes the dissemination of significant new knowledge.