| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
2.072 | 1.550 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.456 | -0.138 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.517 | -0.328 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.457 | -0.472 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.064 | 0.597 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.054 | 0.020 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.516 | -0.350 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.262 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.153 | -0.362 |
Orebro Universitet demonstrates a solid and responsible scientific profile, reflected in an overall integrity score of -0.132, indicating a performance slightly better than the global average. The institution exhibits significant strengths in maintaining very low rates of retracted output and publication in discontinued journals, alongside a prudent management of self-citation and hyperprolific authorship. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, particularly a high exposure to multiple affiliation practices and an incipient vulnerability in redundant publications, which warrant review. This robust integrity framework supports the university's recognized excellence in key areas, as evidenced by its national top-tier rankings in Psychology, Mathematics, and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics according to SCImago Institutions Rankings data. Aligning with its mission to conduct "internationally competitive research" and act as a "dedicated player in society," it is crucial to address these vulnerabilities. Practices that could be perceived as inflating institutional credit risk undermining the authenticity of its competitive standing and societal trust. By proactively managing these specific risk factors, Orebro Universitet can further solidify its reputation for excellence and ensure its contributions are built on a foundation of unimpeachable scientific integrity.
The institution presents a Z-score of 2.072, which is notably higher than the national average of 1.550. This result suggests a high exposure to this particular risk factor, indicating that the university is more prone to showing alert signals than its national peers, even though the practice is common throughout the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping.” This heightened tendency at Orebro Universitet warrants a closer examination to ensure that all affiliations are substantive and reflect genuine collaboration, thereby safeguarding the institution's reputation for authentic contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.456, the institution demonstrates an exceptionally low rate of retracted publications, performing significantly better than the already low-risk national average of -0.138. This low-profile consistency indicates that the university's internal quality control mechanisms are not only effective but exemplary within the national context. The absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with a culture of responsible supervision, where retractions are likely rare events stemming from the honest correction of unintentional errors. This performance strongly suggests that systemic failures in pre-publication review are not a concern, reinforcing the institution's commitment to methodological rigor and a robust culture of integrity.
The institution maintains a Z-score of -0.517, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.328. This prudent profile demonstrates that the university manages its citation practices with more rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of established research lines. However, by keeping this rate well below the norm, the institution effectively avoids the risk of creating scientific isolation or 'echo chambers.' This result suggests that the university's academic influence is validated by broad external scrutiny and recognition from the global community, rather than being inflated by endogamous internal dynamics.
The institution's Z-score of -0.457 is in almost perfect alignment with the national average of -0.472, both of which are at a very low risk level. This integrity synchrony signifies a total alignment with an environment of maximum scientific security. It indicates that the university's researchers exercise excellent due diligence in selecting dissemination channels, effectively avoiding media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards. This shared national practice protects the institution from the severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing and confirms a high level of information literacy across the board.
With a Z-score of 0.064, the institution shows a significantly lower incidence of hyper-authorship compared to the national average of 0.597. This reflects a differentiated management approach, where the university successfully moderates a risk that appears to be a more common practice at the national level. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science,' a lower rate outside these contexts suggests that the institution has stronger controls against author list inflation. This helps ensure that individual accountability and transparency are maintained, effectively distinguishing necessary massive collaboration from potentially problematic 'honorary' or political authorship practices.
The institution exhibits a Z-score of -0.054, a low-risk value that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.020. This demonstrates strong institutional resilience, as the university's control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate a systemic risk present in the country. A low gap suggests that the institution's scientific prestige is structural and generated from within, as the impact of its research is not overly dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This indicates a high level of real internal capacity and a sustainable model for generating high-impact science, acting as a buffer against national trends of exogenous prestige.
The institution's Z-score of -0.516 is markedly lower than the national average of -0.350, indicating a prudent profile in managing author productivity. This suggests that the university's processes are governed with more rigor than the national standard, effectively discouraging extreme individual publication volumes. By maintaining a low rate of hyperprolificacy, the institution mitigates the risks of imbalances between quantity and quality, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation. This focus ensures that the institutional culture prioritizes the integrity of the scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.
With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution's rate of publication in its own journals is almost identical to the national average of -0.262, with both at a very low risk level. This integrity synchrony demonstrates a complete alignment with a secure national environment where academic endogamy is not a concern. By avoiding excessive dependence on in-house journals, the institution ensures its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review, thus preventing potential conflicts of interest. This practice enhances the global visibility and competitive validation of its research, confirming that internal channels are not used as 'fast tracks' to inflate publication records.
The institution has a Z-score of -0.153, which, while in the low-risk category, is higher than the national average of -0.362. This points to an incipient vulnerability, as the university shows more signals of this behavior than its national peers. A higher rate of bibliographic overlap between publications can be an early indicator of data fragmentation or 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. While the current level is not alarming, it warrants a proactive review to ensure that research is published in a coherent and significant manner, thereby upholding the integrity of the scientific evidence base.
