| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.706 | -1.210 |
|
Retracted Output
|
13.679 | 2.109 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
1.367 | -0.028 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
7.609 | 3.512 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.223 | -0.008 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.025 | 1.929 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -1.413 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.268 |
|
Redundant Output
|
33.426 | 7.012 |
Aleksander Moisiu University presents a complex profile of scientific integrity, with an overall score of 6.964 that reflects both areas of exceptional control and zones of critical vulnerability. The institution demonstrates robust governance in several key areas, showing very low risk in the rates of multiple affiliations, hyper-authored output, hyperprolific authors, and publication in institutional journals. However, these strengths are overshadowed by significant alerts in the rates of retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant output, which require immediate strategic intervention. This mixed performance contrasts with the university's clear thematic leadership, as evidenced by its top national rankings in Arts and Humanities; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; and Social Sciences according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, the identified high-risk practices fundamentally challenge the universal academic principles of excellence, rigor, and social responsibility. To safeguard its reputational capital and build upon its thematic strengths, it is recommended that the university prioritize a comprehensive review of its publication quality control and research ethics frameworks.
The institution shows a complete absence of risk signals in this area, with a Z-score (-1.706) that is even lower than the already minimal national average (-1.210). This indicates total operational silence, suggesting that the university's affiliation practices are transparent and well-governed. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the university's low rate confirms it is not engaging in strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or "affiliation shopping," reflecting a sound and ethical approach to academic collaboration.
The institution's rate of retracted output represents a global red flag, with an exceptionally high Z-score of 13.679 that far exceeds the country's already significant risk level (2.109). This situation suggests that the institution is not only immersed in a compromised national environment but is a primary driver of this critical dynamic. Retractions are complex events, but a rate this far above the average strongly indicates that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be failing systemically. This vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture points to possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor that requires immediate and thorough qualitative verification by management to protect its scientific reputation.
The university displays a moderate deviation from the national norm in institutional self-citation, with its Z-score (1.367) indicating a medium risk level, in contrast to the low-risk profile of the country (-0.028). This suggests the institution is more sensitive to risk factors than its national peers. While a certain level of self-citation is natural for developing research lines, this disproportionately high rate can signal concerning scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' The value warns of a potential for endogamous impact inflation, where the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal dynamics rather than validated by the broader global community.
With a Z-score of 7.609, the institution's rate of publication in discontinued journals is a global red flag, significantly amplifying the already critical risk level observed nationally (3.512). This constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. Such a high proportion of output in journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards exposes the institution to severe reputational damage. It strongly suggests an urgent need to enhance information literacy among researchers to prevent the misallocation of resources and avoid engagement with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.
The institution demonstrates low-profile consistency regarding hyper-authored publications, with a Z-score of -1.223 indicating a very low risk that is well-aligned with the low-risk national standard (-0.008). This absence of risk signals suggests that authorship practices at the university are well-calibrated. It indicates an ability to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potentially problematic 'honorary' authorship practices, thereby maintaining individual accountability and transparency in its research output.
The university shows notable institutional resilience in managing its scientific leadership, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.025 that effectively mitigates the systemic risks observed at the national level (1.929). This indicates that the institution's control mechanisms are successfully preventing an over-reliance on external partners for impact. The balanced score suggests that its scientific prestige is largely the result of genuine internal capacity and intellectual leadership, avoiding the sustainability risks associated with a high dependency on collaborations where the institution does not lead.
In the area of hyperprolific authorship, the institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with its national context. Its Z-score (-1.413) is identical to the country's average, reflecting a shared environment of maximum scientific security. This alignment indicates that the university effectively manages the balance between productivity and quality, showing no signs of the potential risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without meaningful intellectual contribution.
The university's practices regarding publication in its own journals are in complete alignment with the national environment, with an institutional Z-score (-0.268) that matches the country's average. This integrity synchrony points to a secure and well-regulated system. The data suggests that the institution avoids excessive dependence on its in-house journals, thus mitigating potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy, ensuring that its scientific output is validated through standard, competitive external review processes.
The institution's rate of redundant output is a critical global red flag, with a staggering Z-score of 33.426 that dramatically exceeds the already high national average (7.012). This indicates the university is a major outlier, leading risk metrics in a country already compromised by this practice. Such a high value alerts to the systemic practice of dividing coherent studies into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, a behavior known as 'salami slicing.' This not only distorts the scientific evidence base but also overburdens the peer-review system, signaling an urgent need to re-evaluate research assessment policies to prioritize significant new knowledge over sheer publication volume.
