| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
0.677 | 0.726 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.259 | -0.233 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.616 | 0.310 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.140 | -0.189 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
2.337 | 0.352 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
2.281 | 0.826 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-0.004 | -0.462 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | 0.703 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.130 | 0.409 |
Eszterhazy Karoly University of Applied Sciences presents a commendable overall integrity profile, reflected in its low global risk score of 0.141. The institution demonstrates significant strengths in maintaining scientific independence, with exceptionally low rates of output in its own journals and robust control over institutional self-citation, effectively mitigating systemic risks prevalent in the national context. However, areas requiring strategic attention have been identified, most notably a significant rate of hyper-authored output and a medium-risk gap between its overall research impact and the impact of work under its direct leadership. These vulnerabilities contrast with the university's strong thematic positioning, particularly its Top 10 national ranking in Environmental Science and its solid standing in Agricultural and Biological Sciences, as per SCImago Institutions Rankings data. To fully align with its mission of providing "consistently high quality" training, it is crucial to address these integrity risks, as practices like authorship inflation could undermine the perception of academic excellence and rigor. By leveraging its clear governance strengths to tackle these specific challenges, the university can further solidify its role as a key intellectual and cultural center in the region.
The institution's Z-score of 0.677 is moderately lower than the national average of 0.726, suggesting a degree of differentiated management over a practice that is common within the country. This indicates that the university is more effectively moderating the risks associated with multiple affiliations. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled approach helps ensure that these practices are driven by genuine collaboration rather than strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or engage in “affiliation shopping,” thereby safeguarding the transparency of its academic contributions.
With a Z-score of -0.259, which is nearly identical to the national average of -0.233, the institution demonstrates a level of risk that is in a state of statistical normality for its context. This alignment suggests that its quality control and post-publication supervision mechanisms are functioning as expected. The low incidence of retractions indicates that, when they do occur, they are likely the result of honest corrections of unintentional errors, reflecting a culture of responsible scientific practice rather than a systemic failure in pre-publication review.
The institution exhibits strong institutional resilience, with a low-risk Z-score of -0.616 that stands in positive contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.310. This divergence indicates that the university's control mechanisms are successfully mitigating a systemic risk observed elsewhere in the country. By avoiding disproportionately high rates of self-citation, the institution steers clear of scientific isolation or 'echo chambers,' ensuring its work is validated by the broader global community and that its academic influence is based on external recognition rather than endogamous impact inflation.
The institution's Z-score of -0.140, while in the low-risk category, is slightly higher than the national average of -0.189, signaling an incipient vulnerability. This suggests that while the issue is not currently critical, the university shows slightly more activity in this area than its national peers. A high proportion of output in journals that do not meet international ethical or quality standards can pose severe reputational risks. This minor signal warrants a proactive review of researcher guidance and information literacy to ensure that institutional resources are not wasted on 'predatory' or low-quality dissemination channels.
A significant alert is raised by the institution's Z-score of 2.337, which is substantially higher than the country's medium-risk score of 0.352. This indicates a risk accentuation, where the university amplifies a vulnerability already present in the national system. Outside of 'Big Science' contexts where large author lists are standard, such a high rate can indicate systemic author list inflation, a practice that dilutes individual accountability and transparency. This finding calls for an urgent internal review to distinguish between necessary massive collaboration and potential 'honorary' or political authorship practices that could compromise research integrity.
The institution's Z-score of 2.281, while at a medium risk level, is significantly higher than the national average of 0.826, indicating a high exposure to this particular risk. This wide positive gap suggests that the university's overall scientific prestige may be overly dependent on external partners rather than its own structural capacity. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where excellence metrics could be resulting from strategic positioning in collaborations where the institution does not exercise intellectual leadership. This invites a strategic reflection on how to build and showcase genuine internal research capacity.
With a Z-score of -0.004, the institution's risk level is low but slightly elevated compared to the national average of -0.462. This pattern points to an incipient vulnerability that warrants monitoring. While high productivity can be a sign of leadership, extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. This signal suggests a need for review to ensure a healthy balance between quantity and quality, and to preemptively address potential risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation.
The institution demonstrates an exemplary case of preventive isolation, with a very low-risk Z-score of -0.268 in stark contrast to the medium-risk national average of 0.703. This shows the university does not replicate risk dynamics that are common in its environment. By minimizing its reliance on in-house journals, the institution avoids potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, ensuring its scientific production undergoes independent external peer review. This practice enhances the global visibility and credibility of its research, reinforcing a commitment to competitive international standards.
The institution's Z-score of 0.130, while in the medium-risk category, is considerably lower than the national average of 0.409. This suggests a pattern of differentiated management, where the university more effectively moderates a risk that appears common in the country. This indicates better control over the practice of dividing a single study into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity. By curbing this tendency, the institution demonstrates a greater commitment to publishing significant new knowledge rather than prioritizing volume, which strengthens the integrity of the scientific record.
