University of Novi Sad

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Novi Sad demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall score of -0.188, which indicates performance above the global baseline. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of retracted output and hyperprolific authors, alongside effective mitigation of risks prevalent at the national level, such as publishing in discontinued journals. These positive indicators are counterbalanced by moderate risks related to academic endogamy, specifically in institutional self-citation and a tendency to publish in its own journals, where its scores are higher than the national average. These findings are critical in the context of the university's recognized leadership, as evidenced by its high national rankings in diverse fields such as Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Medicine, according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While a specific mission statement was not localized for this report, any pursuit of academic excellence is intrinsically linked to scientific integrity. The identified risks, if left unaddressed, could challenge this commitment by creating 'echo chambers' that limit external validation and global impact. Overall, the University of Novi Sad has a solid foundation; by strategically addressing its patterns of internal citation and publication, it can further enhance its scientific credibility and ensure its thematic strengths resonate with maximum international impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of -1.120, a figure that is even lower than the already minimal national average of -0.865. This result signifies a total operational silence in this area, with an absence of risk signals that is more pronounced than the national standard. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of collaboration, the university's exceptionally low rate provides strong assurance against practices like strategic “affiliation shopping” or artificial inflation of institutional credit, reflecting a clear and transparent representation of its research partnerships.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.418, the institution demonstrates a very low risk, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.016, which falls into the medium-risk category. This significant difference suggests a form of preventive isolation, where the university does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. A high rate of retractions can signal systemic failures in quality control. The university's excellent performance here indicates that its pre-publication supervision and methodological rigor are robust, effectively safeguarding its integrity culture against the vulnerabilities present elsewhere in the country.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.681, while the national average is 0.426, placing both in the medium-risk category. The university's higher score indicates a greater exposure to this risk compared to its national peers. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but disproportionately high rates can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value serves as a warning of potential endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.012, demonstrating notable resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.056. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk found in the broader national context. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals is a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. The university's positive performance indicates that its researchers are successfully avoiding media that fail to meet international ethical standards, thereby protecting the institution from severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a low-risk Z-score of -0.279, the institution effectively counters the national trend, which sits at a medium-risk average of 0.135. This demonstrates institutional resilience, as control mechanisms appear to be mitigating systemic risks prevalent in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science', a high rate outside these contexts can indicate author list inflation, diluting accountability. The university's low score suggests a healthier approach to authorship, distinguishing necessary collaboration from 'honorary' or political practices and promoting transparency.

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

The institution's Z-score of 0.548 is considerably lower than the national average of 1.204, although both are classified as medium risk. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A wide positive gap signals that scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than internal capacity. The university's more contained score suggests it maintains a healthier balance, demonstrating stronger intellectual leadership in its collaborations and reducing the risk of its excellence metrics being overly reliant on exogenous factors.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution records a Z-score of -0.934, indicating a very low risk that is significantly better than the low-risk national average of -0.382. This low-profile consistency, where the absence of risk signals surpasses the national standard, is a sign of excellent academic practice. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and point to risks like coercive authorship. The university's near-total absence of such signals reinforces a healthy balance between quantity and quality, upholding the integrity of its scientific record.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.131 is higher than the national average of 0.912, with both falling into the medium-risk level. This indicates that the university has a higher exposure to this risk factor than its environment average. While in-house journals can be valuable, excessive dependence on them raises conflicts of interest and risks academic endogamy by potentially bypassing independent peer review. This heightened score warns that a significant portion of production might be using internal channels as 'fast tracks' to inflate CVs, which could limit global visibility and competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of -0.302, the institution displays a more prudent profile than the national average of -0.120, even though both are in the low-risk category. This suggests that the university manages its research dissemination processes with more rigor than the national standard. A high rate of bibliographic overlap often indicates 'salami slicing'—fragmenting a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The institution's lower score reflects a stronger commitment to publishing significant new knowledge over volume, a practice that respects the scientific record and the review system.