University of Defence, Serbia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Defence demonstrates a robust and generally well-managed scientific integrity profile, reflected in its balanced overall score of -0.023. The institution exhibits significant strengths and effective control mechanisms in several key areas, including exceptionally low rates of retracted output, redundant publications, and output in institutional journals, often outperforming national trends. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by medium-risk signals in the rates of publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and a notable gap between its overall research impact and the impact of its internally-led projects. These vulnerabilities, while not critical, require strategic attention. The university's strong thematic positioning, particularly its Top 5 national ranking in Medicine according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, underscores its capacity for high-quality research. To fully align with its mission of developing a rigorous scientific approach for national defense, it is crucial to address these integrity risks, as they could undermine the credibility and excellence required for such a critical mandate. By strengthening due diligence in publication channels and reviewing authorship practices, the University of Defence can further solidify its role as a national leader in both education and scientific research.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score is -0.637, while the national average is -0.865. This indicates a slight divergence from the national context, where the university shows a marginally higher incidence of multiple affiliations than is typical for the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this minor deviation suggests the emergence of risk signals that are otherwise absent at the national level. It warrants a gentle review to ensure all affiliations are strategically sound and not early indicators of practices like “affiliation shopping” aimed at inflating institutional credit.

Rate of Retracted Output

The institution maintains an excellent Z-score of -0.456, in stark contrast to the national average of 0.016, which shows a medium-risk tendency. This demonstrates a clear preventive isolation, where the university successfully avoids the risk dynamics related to retractions that are more prevalent in its national environment. This very low rate suggests that the institution's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are robust and effective, fostering an integrity culture that successfully prevents the kind of systemic errors or malpractice that can lead to retractions.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

With a Z-score of -0.748, the university shows a remarkably low rate of institutional self-citation, especially when compared to the national average of 0.426. This performance highlights a strong institutional resilience, suggesting that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating the systemic risks of self-citation that are more common across the country. By avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers,' the institution ensures its work is validated by the broader external community, demonstrating that its academic influence is based on global recognition rather than endogamous impact inflation.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score for this indicator is 0.729, significantly higher than the national average of 0.056. This reveals a high exposure to risk, indicating the university is more prone than its national peers to publishing in journals that have been discontinued. This pattern constitutes a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting dissemination channels. A high Z-score indicates that a significant portion of scientific production is being channeled through media that do 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's Z-score of -0.997 is exceptionally low, contrasting sharply with the national average of 0.135. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university effectively curbs the national tendency toward hyper-authorship. This low rate indicates that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary massive collaboration and questionable practices like 'honorary' or political authorship. By maintaining clear and accountable author lists, the university reinforces transparency and ensures that credit is assigned based on meaningful intellectual contribution.

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

The institution's Z-score of 1.175 is nearly identical to the national average of 1.204, pointing to a systemic pattern. This risk level, shared across the country, reflects a common practice where a significant gap exists between the impact of an institution's total output and the impact of the research it leads. This signals a potential sustainability risk, suggesting that scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. This shared national dynamic invites a strategic reflection on whether high-impact metrics result from genuine internal capacity or from positioning in collaborations where national institutions do not exercise primary intellectual leadership.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

With a Z-score of 1.467, the university shows a medium-risk level for hyperprolific authors, a moderate deviation from the low-risk national average of -0.382. This indicates a greater sensitivity to this risk factor compared to its national peers. Extreme individual publication volumes often challenge the limits of human capacity for meaningful intellectual contribution. This elevated indicator alerts to potential imbalances between quantity and quality, pointing to risks such as coercive authorship, 'salami slicing,' or the assignment of authorship without real participation—dynamics that prioritize metrics over scientific record integrity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is very low, positioning it in preventive isolation from the national trend, which has a medium-risk score of 0.912. This shows the university does not replicate the risk dynamics of relying on its own journals, a practice more common in its environment. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house publications, the institution mitigates potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, enhancing its global visibility and validating its research through standard competitive processes rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The university exhibits a very low Z-score of -1.186 for redundant output, which is even lower than the already low-risk national average of -0.120. This demonstrates low-profile consistency, where the institution's complete absence of risk signals in this area aligns with, and even improves upon, the national standard. This excellent result indicates that the practice of 'salami slicing'—artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting a coherent study into minimal publishable units—is not a concern. The institution's research culture appears to prioritize the publication of significant, new knowledge over sheer volume.