| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
1.088 | 1.185 |
|
Retracted Output
|
-0.353 | -0.211 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
-0.486 | -0.264 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
-0.194 | -0.486 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
0.193 | 0.904 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
0.411 | -0.140 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.051 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
-0.268 | -0.266 |
|
Redundant Output
|
-0.898 | -0.269 |
Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.243, which indicates a performance well-aligned with best practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its responsible authorship and publication practices, with exceptionally low risk signals in the rates of hyperprolific authors, redundant output, and publication in institutional journals. These areas of excellence suggest a culture that prioritizes quality and ethical rigor. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate dependency on external collaborations for impact, and medium-level signals in hyper-authorship and multiple affiliations, which, while managed better than the national average, still warrant monitoring. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, these solid integrity foundations support notable thematic strengths, particularly in Environmental Science (ranked 3rd in Switzerland), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (6th), and Earth and Planetary Sciences (7th). While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, the identified risks, especially the gap in leadership impact, could challenge any mission centered on achieving self-sustaining academic excellence and global intellectual leadership. By leveraging its strong integrity culture to address these moderate vulnerabilities, the institution is well-positioned to enhance its research sustainability and solidify its reputation as a leader in its key strategic domains.
The institution presents a Z-score of 1.088, while the national average is 1.185. This indicates that the institution is effectively moderating a risk that appears to be a common characteristic of the national research landscape. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. In this context, the institution demonstrates a more controlled approach to this practice than its national peers, suggesting a differentiated management style that mitigates some of the systemic pressures for affiliation expansion present in the country.
The institution's Z-score of -0.353 is notably lower than the national average of -0.211. This prudent profile suggests that the institution's quality control mechanisms are managed with more rigor than the national standard. Retractions can be complex, but a rate significantly below the average is a strong positive signal. It indicates that the institution's pre-publication review processes are likely robust and effective, minimizing the incidence of errors or malpractice and reflecting a highly developed culture of scientific integrity that surpasses the already low-risk national benchmark.
The institution shows a Z-score of -0.486, which is considerably lower than the national average of -0.264. This demonstrates a prudent profile, indicating that the institution manages its citation practices with greater rigor than the national standard. A certain level of self-citation is natural, but the institution's very low rate strongly mitigates any risk of creating scientific 'echo chambers' or inflating its impact through endogamous practices. This result suggests that the institution's academic influence is firmly rooted in recognition from the external, global community, reflecting a commitment to broad scholarly dialogue that is even stronger than that of its national peers.
The institution's Z-score of -0.194 contrasts with the national average of -0.486. This slight divergence indicates that the institution shows minor signals of risk activity in an area where the rest of the country demonstrates an almost complete absence of such signals. Although the overall risk is low, this score suggests that a small fraction of the institution's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international quality standards. This constitutes a minor alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels and points to a need for reinforcing information literacy to avoid potential reputational risks associated with low-quality publishing practices.
The institution presents a Z-score of 0.193, significantly lower than the national average of 0.904. This pattern suggests a differentiated management of authorship practices, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that is more pronounced across the country. Outside of "Big Science" contexts, extensive author lists can dilute individual accountability. The institution's lower score indicates more effective control over this trend, reducing the potential for 'honorary' or political authorship and fostering a more transparent and accountable research environment compared to the national norm.
The institution's Z-score is 0.411, a moderate deviation from the national average of -0.140. This score indicates that the institution shows a greater sensitivity to this particular risk factor than its peers. A wide positive gap, where overall impact is high but the impact of institution-led research is low, signals a potential sustainability risk. It suggests that the institution's scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners and collaborations where it does not exercise primary intellectual leadership. This reliance on exogenous impact is more pronounced here than in the rest of the country, inviting a strategic reflection on how to build more structural, internal capacity for high-impact research.
The institution has a Z-score of -1.413, in a national context where the average is -0.051. This demonstrates a low-profile consistency, where the complete absence of risk signals aligns with and reinforces the national standard of responsible productivity. Extreme individual publication volumes can challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution and may point to imbalances between quantity and quality. The institution's exceptionally low score is a strong indicator of a healthy research environment that effectively discourages practices like coercive authorship or superficial contributions, prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record.
The institution's Z-score of -0.268 shows a near-perfect alignment with the national average of -0.266. This integrity synchrony reflects a shared commitment within the national system to prioritize external, independent peer review. By avoiding reliance on in-house journals, the institution effectively mitigates risks of academic endogamy and potential conflicts of interest where it would act as both judge and party. This practice ensures its scientific production is validated through standard competitive channels, maximizing its global visibility and credibility.
The institution's Z-score of -0.898 is significantly lower than the national average of -0.269. This reflects a low-profile consistency, where the institution's near-total absence of risk signals reinforces the country's already strong standards. A low rate of redundant output, or 'salami slicing,' indicates a commendable focus on publishing coherent, significant studies rather than artificially inflating productivity by fragmenting data into minimal units. This commitment to meaningful scientific contribution not only strengthens the reliability of the available evidence but also demonstrates an integrity culture that surpasses the national norm.
