University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

The University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest demonstrates a robust scientific integrity profile, reflected in an overall risk score of -0.424, which indicates a performance significantly stronger than the global average. The institution's primary strengths lie in its exceptional control over publication quality and authorship practices, with very low risk signals in retracted output, publication in discontinued journals, hyperprolific authorship, and output in institutional journals. These results suggest a culture that prioritizes rigorous, externally validated research. Areas requiring strategic attention, though moderate, include the rates of multiple affiliations, institutional self-citation, and redundant output. The University's outstanding reputation, evidenced by its SCImago Institutions Rankings, particularly in Veterinary (4th in Hungary), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (9th in Hungary), and Medicine (11th in Hungary), directly aligns with its mission to protect animal health and the environment. The identified moderate risks, if unaddressed, could subtly undermine this mission of social responsibility by creating a perception of inflated credit or insular validation, which contrasts with the ideal of a "learned protector." To further solidify its position as a leader in scientific excellence, the University is advised to review its policies related to citation, affiliation, and publication strategy to ensure they fully support its foundational values of transparency and global impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution presents a Z-score of 0.578, which is more controlled than the national average of 0.726. This indicates a differentiated management approach where the University moderates a risk that appears to be a more common practice within the country. While multiple affiliations are often a legitimate result of researcher mobility or partnerships, this moderate signal suggests that the institution is navigating a national environment where strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit or “affiliation shopping” may be prevalent. The University's ability to maintain a lower rate than its peers points to effective internal governance, though the practice warrants continued monitoring to ensure all affiliations reflect substantive collaboration.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.559, the institution demonstrates an almost complete absence of risk signals, a profile that is even stronger than the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.233). This low-profile consistency underscores the effectiveness of the University's quality control mechanisms. Retractions can sometimes signify responsible supervision through the honest correction of errors; however, this exceptionally low rate strongly suggests that the institution's pre-publication review processes are robust and systemic, effectively preventing the types of methodological flaws or malpractice that often lead to retractions. This result is a clear indicator of a healthy and resilient integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The University's Z-score for this indicator is 0.843, a value that signals high exposure as it is notably higher than the national average of 0.310. Although both the institution and the country fall within a medium-risk band, the University is significantly more prone to this behavior. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where the institution may be validating its own work without sufficient external scrutiny. This dynamic could lead to an endogamous inflation of impact, suggesting that the institution's academic influence might be oversized by internal citation practices rather than broad recognition from the global scientific community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of -0.500 signifies a very low risk, aligning with and improving upon the low-risk national standard (Z-score -0.189). This demonstrates a consistent and effective policy of avoiding problematic publication venues. A sporadic presence in such journals can occur, but the University's near-zero rate is a critical indicator of strong due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This practice protects the institution from severe reputational risks associated with 'predatory' or low-quality publishing and shows a commendable commitment to information literacy and the responsible use of research resources.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -0.583, the institution exhibits a low-risk profile that contrasts sharply with the medium-risk national average of 0.352. This suggests a high degree of institutional resilience, where internal control mechanisms appear to successfully mitigate systemic risks present in the country. While extensive author lists are legitimate in 'Big Science' fields, a national tendency towards higher rates can indicate author list inflation. The University's performance acts as an effective filter, demonstrating a culture that values clear individual accountability and transparency, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' authorship practices.

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

The institution shows a Z-score of -1.310, a very low-risk value that indicates a state of preventive isolation from the national trend (Z-score 0.826). This result is a significant strength, demonstrating that the University does not replicate the risk dynamics observed in its environment. While it is common for institutions to rely on external partners for impact, the national score suggests a broader dependency risk. In contrast, the University's score indicates that its scientific prestige is structural and internally generated, not dependent on collaborations where it does not exercise intellectual leadership. This reflects a high level of real internal capacity and research sustainability.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is exceptionally low, reinforcing a pattern of low-profile consistency when compared to the already low national average of -0.462. This near-total absence of hyperprolific authors is a strong positive signal. While high productivity can reflect leadership, extreme publication volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. The University's result indicates a healthy balance between quantity and quality, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution operates with a very low risk, demonstrating a clear preventive isolation from the medium-risk national dynamic (Z-score 0.703). This finding suggests the University does not replicate the risk of academic endogamy observed elsewhere in the country. While in-house journals can be valuable, an over-reliance on them creates conflicts of interest. The University's low score indicates a commitment to independent, external peer review, ensuring its scientific production undergoes standard competitive validation and achieves global visibility rather than using internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 0.133, while in the medium-risk category, reflects a differentiated management approach, as it is considerably lower than the national average of 0.409. This suggests the University is actively moderating risks related to data fragmentation that may be more common in the national system. Citing previous work is essential, but high bibliographic overlap can indicate 'salami slicing'—the practice of dividing a study into minimal units to inflate productivity. The University's more controlled performance indicates a greater focus on publishing significant new knowledge over prioritizing sheer volume, which helps maintain the integrity of the scientific evidence base.