| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.353 | 0.084 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.343 | -0.212 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.069 | -0.061 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.066 | -0.455 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.831 | 0.994 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.228 | 0.275 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
0.943 | 0.454 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.263 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.374 | 0.514 |
Hochschule Furtwangen demonstrates a commendable overall integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research autonomy and governance that align with its core mission. The institution's overall score of 0.156 reflects a solid foundation, particularly highlighted by its exceptional performance in maintaining intellectual leadership (Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership) and avoiding academic endogamy (Rate of Output in Institutional Journals). These strengths are foundational to fostering genuine innovation. However, the analysis also reveals a high exposure to risks in areas such as the Rate of Multiple Affiliations and the Rate of Hyperprolific Authors, which require strategic attention. Thematically, the institution's robust research is recognized in the SCImago Institutions Rankings, with strong national placements in Medicine, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Social Sciences, and Engineering. To fully realize its mission of cultivating "responsible and competent individuals" and contributing to societal innovation, it is crucial to address the identified vulnerabilities. Mitigating risks related to inflated credit and authorship pressures will ensure that the institution's pursuit of excellence is built on a transparent and unimpeachable ethical framework, reinforcing its reputation as a leader in application-oriented research.
The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 2.353, which is significantly elevated compared to the national average of 0.084. This suggests that the university is more prone to the dynamics of this risk factor than its peers within the same national system. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This high exposure warrants a review of internal policies to ensure that all declared affiliations reflect substantial and transparent contributions, thereby safeguarding the institution's academic credibility.
With a Z-score of -0.343, the institution's rate of retractions is slightly higher than the national average of -0.212, but remains within a low-risk range. This subtle increase points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring before it escalates. Retractions are complex events, and a rate significantly higher than the global average can alert to a vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. While the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests that a proactive review of pre-publication quality control mechanisms could be beneficial to prevent potential systemic failures and reinforce the institution's commitment to methodological rigor.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.069, indicating a moderate deviation from the national standard, which stands at a low-risk Z-score of -0.061. This shows a greater sensitivity to risk factors related to citation practices compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, this elevated rate could signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This warns of a potential risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be disproportionately shaped by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global community.
The institution's Z-score of -0.066, while in the low-risk category, represents a slight divergence from the national context, where the average is -0.455 (very low risk). This indicates the presence of minor risk signals that are largely absent across the rest of the country. A high proportion of publications in such journals would constitute a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the current level is low, this divergence suggests a need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to ensure resources are not inadvertently directed toward channels that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards.
The institution's Z-score of -0.831 is firmly in the low-risk category, contrasting with the national average of 0.994, which falls into the medium-risk tier. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as internal control mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk prevalent at the national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' contexts, their appearance elsewhere can indicate author list inflation, diluting individual accountability. The institution’s low score suggests it effectively distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable authorship practices, maintaining transparency and accountability.
The institution shows a Z-score of -1.228, a result that places it in the very low-risk category and signifies a key institutional strength, particularly when compared to the national average of 0.275 (medium risk). This demonstrates a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of impact dependency observed in its environment. A high positive gap often signals that scientific prestige is dependent on external partners rather than structural capacity. In contrast, this institution's strong negative score indicates that its academic excellence results from real internal capabilities and intellectual leadership, ensuring its research impact is both sustainable and authentic.
With a Z-score of 0.943, the institution shows a higher exposure to this risk compared to the national average of 0.454, though both fall within the medium-risk category. This indicates that the university is more prone to showing alert signals related to extreme productivity than its environment average. While high productivity can evidence leadership, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated 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 scientific integrity.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is almost identical to the national average of -0.263, with both values situated in the very low-risk category. This reflects a state of integrity synchrony, demonstrating total alignment with a national environment of maximum scientific security in this area. This absence of risk signals indicates that the institution is not reliant on its own journals for publication, thereby avoiding potential conflicts of interest where it might act as both judge and party. This practice ensures that its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, reinforcing its global visibility and commitment to competitive validation.
The institution's Z-score of 0.374 is lower than the national average of 0.514, although both are classified as medium risk. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the university appears to moderate a risk that is more common or pronounced at the national level. A high value in this indicator can alert to 'salami slicing,' the practice of dividing a study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, the institution demonstrates better control over this practice, showing a greater commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume.
