University of Primorska

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Primorska presents a robust scientific profile, marked by a commendable overall integrity score of 0.155. This performance indicates a solid foundation, with significant strengths in managing complex collaborative dynamics and ensuring the structural sustainability of its research impact. The institution demonstrates notable resilience, particularly in its low rates of hyper-authored output and a minimal gap between its overall and led-research impact, areas where it outperforms national trends. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's thematic strengths are prominent in areas such as Environmental Science, Business, Management and Accounting, Arts and Humanities, and Medicine, where it consistently ranks among the top three institutions in Slovenia. However, this pursuit of excellence, a core tenet of the university's mission, is challenged by medium-risk indicators related to publication strategies, including a high rate of output in its own journals and elevated levels of institutional self-citation and redundant publications. These patterns, while potentially linked to the mission's goal of developing institutional journals, risk creating an academic 'echo chamber' that could undermine the very quality and external validation that excellence requires. To fully align its practices with its strategic vision, the university is encouraged to leverage this analysis to refine its publication and affiliation policies, thereby reinforcing its commitment to unimpeachable scientific quality and social responsibility.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution registers a Z-score of 0.691, a value that indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to the national average of -0.470. This moderate deviation from the country's low-risk profile suggests that the university's affiliation patterns are more pronounced than those of its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this elevated rate warrants a review of internal policies. It serves as a signal to ensure that all affiliations are transparent and reflect substantive collaboration, thereby mitigating the risk of strategic practices aimed at inflating institutional credit or "affiliation shopping" rather than genuine scientific partnership.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.343, the institution's performance is statistically normal and aligns closely with the national average of -0.299. This synchrony indicates that the university's rate of retracted publications is as expected for its context and size, showing no unusual signals of systemic issues. Retractions are complex events, and a low, stable rate such as this often reflects responsible scientific supervision and the honest correction of unintentional errors. The data suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning effectively and in line with national standards.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The university shows a Z-score of 0.286, which represents a moderate deviation from the national benchmark of -0.022. This difference indicates that the institution is more sensitive to this risk factor than its peers across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural and reflects the continuity of established research lines. However, this higher-than-average rate could signal the formation of 'echo chambers' where the institution validates its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. It warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that a portion of the institution's academic influence may be driven by internal dynamics rather than broader recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.114, while low, marks a slight divergence from the national environment, which shows a Z-score of -0.338 and is virtually free of this risk. This suggests the emergence of minor risk signals within the university that are not present elsewhere in the country. A sporadic presence in discontinued journals may be due to a lack of information, but its appearance where it is otherwise absent constitutes an alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. It points to a need for enhanced information literacy among researchers to avoid channeling scientific production through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.410, the University of Primorska demonstrates institutional resilience, effectively mitigating a risk that is more prevalent at the national level (Z-score of 0.595). This performance indicates that the university's control mechanisms are successful in preventing the kind of author list inflation that can dilute individual accountability and transparency. The institution's low rate suggests a clear distinction between necessary, large-scale collaboration and the questionable practice of awarding 'honorary' or political authorships, a discipline it maintains better than the national average.

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

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.454, showcasing strong institutional resilience against a systemic risk observed nationally (Z-score of 0.586). This favorable score indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structurally sound and not overly dependent on external partners for impact. Unlike the broader national trend, where a wider gap suggests reliance on collaborations where intellectual leadership is not held, the university's performance reflects a healthy balance. This suggests its high-impact research is a result of genuine internal capacity, reinforcing the sustainability and autonomy of its scientific excellence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The university's Z-score of -0.418, while indicating a low risk, points to an incipient vulnerability when compared to the national average of -0.712. Although both scores are well within a safe range, the institution shows slightly more activity in this area than its national counterparts, warranting proactive review before any potential escalation. This minor signal serves as a reminder to maintain a healthy balance between quantity and quality, ensuring that high publication volumes are the result of genuine leadership and not dynamics such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful intellectual contribution.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of 2.569, the institution demonstrates high exposure to this risk, a level that is significantly more pronounced than the already medium-risk national average of 1.334. This pattern suggests that the university is more prone to relying on its own publication channels than its peers. While in-house journals are valuable for training and local dissemination, this excessive dependence raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party. This high value warns of a significant risk of academic endogamy, where production might bypass rigorous, independent external peer review, potentially limiting global visibility and creating 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records without standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.498 places it at a medium risk level, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard of -0.044. This indicates that the university is more sensitive than its peers to practices that can artificially inflate productivity. This elevated value serves as an alert for 'salami slicing'—the fragmentation of a coherent study into minimal publishable units. Such a practice not only overburdens the peer review system but also distorts the available scientific evidence by prioritizing a high volume of publications over the dissemination of significant, consolidated new knowledge.