Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts presents a robust and generally well-managed scientific integrity profile, with an overall risk score of -0.215 that indicates a performance aligned with sound research practices. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptionally low rates of Institutional Self-Citation, Hyperprolific Authorship, and publication in its own journals, demonstrating a strong culture of external validation and global integration. However, areas requiring strategic attention include a moderate risk in the gap between overall impact and the impact of institution-led research, and a notable alert in the Rate of Redundant Output. These findings are contextualized by the institution's strong national standing in key thematic areas, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data, including Energy (ranked 7th in Switzerland), Business, Management and Accounting (10th), and Psychology (13th). To fully align with its mission of fostering "interdisciplinary excellence" and producing experts capable of mastering "the challenges of the 21st century," it is crucial to address the identified risks. Practices like redundant publication could undermine the "sound subject-specific research" central to its identity. By focusing on enhancing the impact of its own intellectual leadership and promoting publication strategies that prioritize substance over volume, the University can further solidify its reputation for innovation and integrity.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of 0.501 for multiple affiliations, while indicating a medium risk level, is notably lower than the national average of 1.185. This suggests a differentiated management approach, where the University successfully moderates a risk that appears to be more common or pronounced across Switzerland. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this controlled rate indicates that the institution is less exposed to the risk of strategic "affiliation shopping" designed to artificially inflate institutional credit, maintaining a more transparent representation of its collaborative footprint compared to the national trend.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.306, the institution demonstrates a prudent profile regarding retracted publications, performing more rigorously than the national standard (-0.211). This low incidence suggests that the University's quality control and supervision mechanisms are effective. Retractions can be complex events, but a rate below the national average points towards a healthy integrity culture where potential methodological errors or malpractice are successfully prevented before publication, safeguarding the institution's reputation and the reliability of its scientific record.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution shows an exceptionally low rate of institutional self-citation, with a Z-score of -1.055, significantly below the already low national average of -0.264. This absence of risk signals aligns perfectly with the high standards of the national scientific environment. This result is a strong indicator of scientific extroversion, demonstrating that the institution avoids the "echo chambers" that can arise from excessive self-validation. Its academic influence is clearly driven by recognition from the global community rather than being inflated by internal dynamics, reflecting a healthy integration into international research conversations.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.257 for output in discontinued journals signals a slight divergence from the national context, which shows a very low risk profile (-0.486). This indicates the presence of minor risk activity that is less common in the rest of the country. A higher-than-average presence in journals that cease publication can be a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This value suggests a need to reinforce information literacy among researchers to ensure they avoid channeling work through media that may not meet international ethical or quality standards, thus preventing reputational risk and the misallocation of research efforts.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.663, the institution displays significant resilience against the risks of hyper-authorship, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.904. This suggests that internal control mechanisms are effectively mitigating a systemic risk present in the country. This low rate indicates that the institution successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and practices of author list inflation. It points to a culture where authorship is likely tied to meaningful contribution, reinforcing individual accountability and transparency in its research output.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score of 0.308 reveals a moderate deviation from the national average (-0.140), indicating a greater sensitivity to this specific risk factor. This positive gap suggests that while the institution's overall impact is significant, the impact of research where it holds intellectual leadership is comparatively lower. This signals a potential sustainability risk, where scientific prestige may be dependent on external partners rather than being structurally generated from within. It invites a strategic reflection on how to strengthen internal capacity to ensure that excellence metrics are a direct result of the institution's own leadership and innovation.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.413 for hyperprolific authors, a figure that indicates a near-total absence of this risk and stands in stark contrast to the national average of -0.051. This low-profile consistency with national standards of integrity is a sign of a well-balanced research environment. It suggests that the institutional culture prioritizes quality and meaningful intellectual contribution over sheer publication volume. This effectively mitigates risks such as coercive or honorary authorship and ensures that the integrity of the scientific record is not compromised by pressures for extreme productivity.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates perfect integrity synchrony with its national environment, which has a nearly identical score of -0.266. This total alignment reflects an environment of maximum scientific security regarding academic endogamy. By avoiding dependence on its own journals, the institution ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review, which is fundamental for objective validation and global visibility. This practice prevents potential conflicts of interest and reinforces the credibility of its scientific output, confirming that internal channels are not used to bypass standard competitive validation.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 2.336 for redundant output marks a moderate deviation and shows a greater sensitivity to this risk compared to the national average of -0.269. This high value serves as an alert for the practice of "salami slicing," where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate productivity metrics. This practice can distort the scientific evidence base and overburden the peer-review system. It suggests an urgent need to review institutional guidelines and author mentorship programs to encourage the publication of comprehensive, significant work over a high volume of fragmented outputs.