| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.090 | 1.550 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.071 | -0.138 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-1.550 | -0.328 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.545 | -0.472 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-0.503 | 0.597 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-1.073 | 0.020 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.988 | -0.350 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.299 | -0.362 |
The Stockholm School of Economics presents a robust scientific integrity profile, marked by significant strengths in research autonomy and quality assurance, alongside specific areas that warrant strategic attention. With an overall integrity score of -0.188, the institution demonstrates a commendable performance, particularly in its capacity for intellectual leadership, evidenced by a minimal gap between its total impact and the impact of its self-led research. This is complemented by very low rates of institutional self-citation and publication in discontinued journals, signaling a culture of external validation and rigorous channel selection. However, medium-risk indicators in Multiple Affiliations and Redundant Output suggest vulnerabilities related to publication strategies that prioritize volume and credit attribution. These findings are critical in the context of the institution's outstanding reputation, reflected in its SCImago Institutions Rankings, where it holds top-tier national positions in key areas such as Economics, Econometrics and Finance and Business, Management and Accounting. To fully align with its mission to "strengthen Sweden’s competitiveness," it is vital to address these integrity risks, as practices that inflate metrics can undermine the genuine scientific excellence and social responsibility that drive true competitive advantage. By leveraging its clear strengths in research integrity, the institution is well-positioned to refine its governance mechanisms, ensuring its operational practices fully reflect its commitment to impactful and unimpeachable scientific contribution.
The institution's Z-score of 2.090 places it in the medium-risk category, a level consistent with the national average (Z-score: 1.550). However, the institution's score is notably higher, indicating that it is more exposed to the risk factors associated with this practice than its national peers. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of valuable collaborations, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. This heightened exposure suggests a need to review affiliation policies to ensure they reflect substantive contributions and do not inadvertently encourage "affiliation shopping" for reputational gain.
With a Z-score of -0.071, the institution's rate of retractions is low and broadly aligns with the national context (Z-score: -0.138). Nevertheless, the slightly higher institutional score points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants proactive monitoring. Retractions can be complex events, sometimes reflecting responsible error correction. However, even a minor elevation compared to peers can be an early indicator of stress on pre-publication quality control mechanisms. It is advisable to review these processes to ensure they remain robust and can prevent any potential systemic issues from escalating.
The institution demonstrates exceptional performance in this area, with a Z-score of -1.550, which is significantly lower than the country's already low-risk average (Z-score: -0.328). This result indicates a strong outward-looking research culture that avoids the risks of scientific isolation. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate confirms that its work is validated by the broader international community rather than within an internal 'echo chamber.' This signals that the institution's academic influence is driven by global recognition, not by endogamous impact inflation.
The institution shows an exemplary Z-score of -0.545, indicating a near-total absence of publications in discontinued journals and performing even better than the very low-risk national average (Z-score: -0.472). This operational silence regarding a key risk factor demonstrates outstanding due diligence in the selection of dissemination channels. By effectively avoiding journals that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards, the institution protects its resources and reputation from the severe risks associated with 'predatory' practices, showcasing a strong commitment to information literacy and research quality.
The institution's Z-score of -0.503 reflects a low-risk profile for hyper-authorship, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk level observed across Sweden (Z-score: 0.597). This disparity highlights a notable institutional resilience, suggesting that internal governance or disciplinary norms effectively mitigate the systemic pressures that can lead to author list inflation. By maintaining control over this indicator, the institution fosters a culture of transparency and accountability, successfully distinguishing between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.
With a Z-score of -1.073, the institution exhibits a profound strength, indicating that the impact of its self-led research is exceptionally robust. This performance represents a preventive isolation from the risk dynamics seen at the national level, where a medium-risk Z-score of 0.020 suggests a greater reliance on external collaborations for impact. The institution's result confirms that its scientific prestige is structural and sustainable, built upon genuine internal capacity for intellectual leadership rather than being dependent on a strategic position in collaborations led by others.
The institution's Z-score of -0.988 is in the very low-risk category, significantly below the country's already low-risk benchmark (Z-score: -0.350). This absence of risk signals is consistent with a national standard of integrity and points to a healthy institutional balance between productivity and quality. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution, so this low rate suggests the institutional culture successfully discourages practices that prioritize metric accumulation over the integrity of the scientific record, such as coercive or unmerited authorship.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 is virtually identical to the national average (Z-score: -0.262), with both reflecting a very low-risk level. This demonstrates a perfect integrity synchrony with a national environment of maximum scientific security. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can create conflicts of interest and academic endogamy. The institution's minimal reliance on such channels confirms its commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its research undergoes standard competitive validation and achieves global visibility.
The institution's Z-score of 0.299 indicates a medium-risk level for redundant output, which constitutes a moderate deviation from the low-risk national standard (Z-score: -0.362). This suggests the institution is more sensitive than its peers to practices of data fragmentation, or 'salami slicing.' Such practices, where a coherent study is divided into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity, can distort the scientific evidence and overburden the peer-review system. This signal warrants a review of publication guidelines to reinforce the value of presenting significant, new knowledge over maximizing publication volume.
