Alexander Dubcek University of Trencin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Alexander Dubcek University of Trencin demonstrates a complex profile of scientific integrity, marked by distinct areas of strength and specific vulnerabilities that require strategic attention. With an overall score of 0.448, the institution shows commendable performance in avoiding academic endogamy and authorship inflation, as evidenced by very low risk in institutional journal output and hyper-authorship. However, this is counterbalanced by medium-risk signals in several areas, notably a high exposure to publishing in discontinued journals and generating redundant output, alongside a greater sensitivity to retractions and hyperprolific authorship than the national average. Thematically, the university showcases significant national leadership, with SCImago Institutions Rankings placing it among the top 5 in Slovakia for Business, Management and Accounting, and Economics, Econometrics and Finance. To fully align with its mission of fostering "knowledge, wisdom, good and creativity," it is crucial to address the identified risks. Practices that lead to retractions or publication in low-quality journals can undermine the very "welfare of society" the university aims to serve. By strengthening its due diligence and quality assurance frameworks, the university can protect its reputational assets and ensure its contributions to the knowledge society are both robust and sustainable.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.183, while the national average is -0.546. This reflects a moderate deviation from the national standard, suggesting the university shows a greater sensitivity to this risk factor than its peers in Slovakia. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, a disproportionately high rate can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This divergence from the national trend warrants a review of institutional policies to ensure that all declared affiliations correspond to substantive and transparent collaborations, maintaining the integrity of institutional attribution.

Rate of Retracted Output

The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.277, in contrast to the country's average of -0.222. This value indicates a moderate deviation, highlighting that the institution is more exposed to this risk than the national baseline. Retractions are complex events, but a rate significantly higher than the average can suggest that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing systemically. This finding alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture, indicating that recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor could be present and requires immediate qualitative verification by management to safeguard its scientific reputation.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -0.078 compared to the national average of 0.950, the institution demonstrates notable resilience against a risk that is more prevalent across the country. This suggests that the university's internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic tendency towards academic insularity observed nationally. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the university’s low rate indicates a healthy integration with the global scientific community, avoiding the 'echo chambers' that can arise from excessive self-validation. This performance signals that the institution's academic influence is built on external scrutiny and recognition rather than being inflated by internal dynamics.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score is 1.621, significantly higher than the national average of 0.249. Although both operate within a medium-risk context, this comparison reveals a high institutional exposure, suggesting the university is much more prone to this risk than its national counterparts. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score indicates that a significant portion of 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

The university registers a Z-score of -1.164, a stark contrast to the national medium-risk average of 0.088. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the institution does not replicate the risk dynamics concerning authorship inflation that are observed elsewhere in the country. This very low score is a positive signal of responsible authorship practices, indicating that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and 'honorary' or political authorship. It reflects a culture that values individual accountability and transparency in crediting contributions, a cornerstone of scientific integrity.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of 0.010, while the national average stands at 0.543. This comparison points to a differentiated management approach, where the university effectively moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A wide positive gap can signal that an institution's prestige is overly dependent on external partners rather than its own intellectual leadership. The university's significantly lower score suggests that its scientific prestige is more structurally sound and less reliant on exogenous factors, reflecting a healthy balance between collaborative impact and the impact generated by research where it exercises direct leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 0.171 against a national average of -0.585, the institution displays a moderate deviation from the country's low-risk standard. This suggests a greater sensitivity to the presence of hyperprolific authors compared to its peers. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This indicator serves as an alert 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 and warrant closer examination.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The university has a Z-score of -0.268, which is exceptionally low compared to the national medium-risk average of 0.985. This signifies a state of preventive isolation, where the institution actively avoids the risks of academic endogamy prevalent in its national environment. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and limit global visibility. The university's very low score indicates that its scientific production consistently undergoes independent external peer review, bypassing the potential 'fast tracks' of internal channels and ensuring its work is validated through standard competitive processes.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 1.874, markedly higher than the national average of 0.244. This significant difference, within a shared medium-risk context, signals a high institutional exposure to this practice. The university appears more prone than its national peers to generating publications with massive and recurring bibliographic overlap, which often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This high value alerts to the risk of artificially inflating productivity by dividing studies into minimal publishable units. This practice not only distorts the scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.