| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-1.256 | -0.755 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.240 | -0.058 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.364 | 0.660 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.035 | -0.195 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.091 | -0.109 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.630 | 0.400 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.611 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.344 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.421 | 0.026 |
Cracow University of Economics demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.462 Z-score, indicating performance significantly better than the global average. The institution exhibits exceptional control over potential research malpractice, particularly in the areas of multiple affiliations, hyperprolific authorship, and publication in institutional journals, where risks are virtually non-existent. This strong foundation of ethical practice directly supports its core mission "To learn the causes and values of things," ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge is grounded in transparency and reliability. The university's academic strengths, evidenced by its high national rankings in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance (Top 10), Business, Management and Accounting (Top 10), and Engineering (Top 20) according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, are clearly built upon this solid integrity framework. The minimal detected vulnerabilities do not compromise its mission; on the contrary, the institution's commitment to responsible conduct amplifies its capacity to provide a "universal education" of genuine excellence. Maintaining this trajectory will solidify its position as a leader in both academic output and scientific integrity within the national and international landscape.
The institution presents a Z-score of -1.256, a value that signals a very low risk and is notably more favorable than the national average of -0.755. This result reflects a stable and transparent approach to academic collaboration, aligning with the low-risk context of the country while demonstrating even stricter adherence to clear affiliation practices. While multiple affiliations can be a legitimate outcome of researcher mobility or partnerships, the university's extremely low rate confirms the absence of strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” reinforcing a culture of straightforward and honest academic accounting.
With a Z-score of -0.240, the institution maintains a low rate of retractions, performing with more rigor than the national standard (Z-score of -0.058). This prudent profile suggests that the university's pre-publication quality control and supervision mechanisms are highly effective. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible error correction, but a consistently low rate like this one indicates that systemic failures or recurring malpractice are not a concern. This demonstrates a strong commitment to methodological rigor and a mature integrity culture that prevents errors before they enter the scientific record.
The university's Z-score for this indicator is 0.364, which, while in the medium-risk range, is significantly lower than the national average of 0.660. This points to a differentiated management strategy, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural for consolidating research lines, but the university's controlled rate mitigates the risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers.' This healthier balance suggests that the institution's academic influence is less susceptible to inflation by internal dynamics and more reliant on genuine recognition from the global community.
The institution shows a low-risk Z-score of -0.035, but this figure is slightly less favorable than the national average of -0.195. This subtle difference signals an incipient vulnerability that warrants attention before it can escalate. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. Although the current level is not alarming, this signal suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure all scientific output is channeled through media with verifiable ethical and quality standards, thereby avoiding potential reputational risks.
With a Z-score of -1.091, the institution displays an exceptionally low rate of hyper-authored publications, indicating a much more rigorous approach than the national standard (Z-score of -0.109). This prudent profile is a strong indicator of sound authorship policies. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, the university's low rate outside these contexts confirms it is effectively preventing practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This commitment to transparency ensures that individual accountability is maintained and credit is assigned appropriately.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.630, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the country's medium-risk average of 0.400. This demonstrates remarkable institutional resilience, as internal mechanisms appear to be successfully mitigating a systemic risk present in the national environment. A low gap indicates that the university's scientific prestige is structurally sound and built upon its own intellectual leadership, not dependent on external partners. This result confirms that its excellence metrics are a reflection of genuine internal capacity, pointing to a highly sustainable research model.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, indicating a near-total absence of this risk signal and performing significantly better than the national average of -0.611. This consistency with a low-risk environment underscores a culture that prioritizes substance over sheer volume. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The university's excellent result suggests a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby protecting the integrity of its scientific record.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution shows a very low reliance on its own journals, a practice that isolates it from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.344). This preventive stance is a clear sign of strong governance and a commitment to external validation. By minimizing publications in its own journals, the university avoids potential conflicts of interest and the risk of academic endogamy. This ensures its research bypasses internal 'fast tracks' and is instead subjected to independent, external peer review, which is essential for achieving genuine global visibility and impact.
The institution maintains a low-risk Z-score of -0.421, showcasing its resilience against the medium-risk trend seen across the country (Z-score of 0.026). This suggests that its internal quality controls effectively discourage the practice of fragmenting research into 'minimal publishable units' to artificially inflate productivity metrics. By fostering an environment that values significant, coherent contributions over volume, the university upholds the integrity of scientific evidence and avoids overburdening the peer-review system with redundant submissions, thereby promoting more meaningful knowledge advancement.
