University of Kragujevac

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Kragujevac presents a profile of controlled integrity, with an overall risk score of 0.187, indicating a solid foundation with specific areas requiring strategic attention. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional management of institutional self-citation, where it demonstrates a clear disconnection from national trends, and its resilience in mitigating risks related to discontinued journals and hyper-authorship that are more prevalent in its environment. However, key vulnerabilities emerge in the form of a high dependency on external collaborations for impact, a concerning rate of redundant output, and a notable exposure to retractions. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic excellence is concentrated in areas such as Chemistry and Earth and Planetary Sciences, where it holds the top national rank, alongside strong positions in Mathematics and Agricultural and Biological Sciences. These identified risks, particularly the gap in leadership impact and potential quality control issues, directly challenge the university's mission to foster a "most favorable research environment" and enhance global competitiveness. To fully achieve its internationalization goals, the institution must address these integrity vulnerabilities, ensuring that its recognized thematic strengths are built upon a foundation of sustainable, internally-led, and high-quality scientific output. A proactive focus on these areas will solidify its reputation and align its operational practices with its strategic ambitions.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The University of Kragujevac shows a Z-score of -0.602, while the national average is -0.865. This represents a slight divergence from the national context, where signals of this risk are virtually non-existent. Although the institution's risk level is low, its score indicates the presence of minimal activity in an otherwise inert environment. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation suggests that monitoring is prudent to ensure these instances are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit through practices like “affiliation shopping”.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.211, significantly higher than the national average of 0.016, the institution demonstrates a high exposure to the factors leading to retractions. This suggests that the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its environment. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically, indicating possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate qualitative verification by management to protect the institution's scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.950, a figure that contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.426. This demonstrates a clear case of preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids replicating the risk dynamics observed across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the national trend points towards a risk of endogamous impact inflation. The university's very low score is a positive indicator of robust external validation and integration into the global scientific community, suggesting its academic influence is earned through broad recognition rather than being inflated by internal 'echo chambers'.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The university's Z-score of -0.069, compared to the national average of 0.056, points to strong institutional resilience. While the national context shows a medium risk of publishing in problematic journals, the university's control mechanisms appear to effectively mitigate this systemic vulnerability. A high proportion of output in such journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The institution's low score indicates that its researchers are successfully guided away from media that fail to meet international standards, thereby protecting the university from severe reputational risks and the misallocation of resources on 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.440, in contrast to the national average of 0.135, the institution demonstrates effective mitigation of a systemic risk present in its environment. The national trend suggests a vulnerability to inflated author lists, but the university's low score indicates that its internal governance acts as a filter against such practices. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, a high Z-score outside these fields can indicate the dilution of individual accountability. The university's prudent profile in this area suggests a healthy culture of authorship that values transparency and meaningful contribution.

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

The institution's Z-score of 2.990 is substantially higher than the national average of 1.204, indicating a high exposure to risks associated with scientific dependency. This wide positive gap suggests that while the university's overall impact is notable, its prestige is heavily reliant on external partners and not yet structurally embedded in its own research leadership. This situation signals a sustainability risk, prompting reflection on whether its excellence metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise primary intellectual leadership, a critical factor for long-term autonomy and reputation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of 0.221 marks a moderate deviation from the national standard of -0.382, indicating a greater sensitivity to risk factors than its peers. This suggests the presence of authors with extreme publication volumes that warrant a review of their causes. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme volumes challenge the limits of 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 0.428, which is notably lower than the national average of 0.912, the institution demonstrates differentiated management of a common risk. This indicates that the university moderates the tendency toward academic endogamy that appears more prevalent in the country. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest. The university's more controlled score suggests a healthier balance, reducing the risk of bypassing independent external peer review and using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 1.052 represents a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.120, showing a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers. This high value serves as an alert for the practice of dividing a coherent study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, also known as 'salami slicing'. Such a practice distorts the available scientific evidence and overburdens the review system. This indicator suggests an urgent need to review publication strategies to ensure that the focus remains on generating significant new knowledge rather than maximizing publication volume.