| Indicator | University Z-score | Average country Z-score |
|---|---|---|
|
Multi-affiliation
|
-0.978 | -0.068 |
|
Retracted Output
|
0.070 | -0.191 |
|
Institutional Self-Citation
|
0.388 | 1.380 |
|
Discontinued Journals Output
|
2.627 | 0.691 |
|
Hyperauthored Output
|
-1.117 | 0.149 |
|
Leadership Impact Gap
|
-0.040 | 0.831 |
|
Hyperprolific Authors
|
-1.413 | -0.770 |
|
Institutional Journal Output
|
4.608 | 1.113 |
|
Redundant Output
|
0.647 | 0.832 |
Trakia University presents a robust overall integrity profile, marked by exceptional governance in authorship and collaboration practices. The institution demonstrates very low risk in areas such as multiple affiliations, hyper-authorship, and hyperprolific authors, indicating a culture that prioritizes accountability and responsible conduct. However, this solid foundation is contrasted by significant vulnerabilities in publication channel selection, particularly a high rate of output in discontinued journals and a notable reliance on institutional publications. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university holds a position of national leadership in several key areas, including an outstanding ranking in Veterinary (1st in Bulgaria), and strong placements in Medicine (5th in Bulgaria) and Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (7th in Bulgaria). While the institution's specific mission statement was not available for this analysis, any commitment to research excellence and social responsibility is challenged by these publication-related risks. Such practices can undermine the credibility and global impact of its strongest research areas, creating a disconnect between its internal strengths and its external reputation. By strategically addressing these specific vulnerabilities, Trakia University can better protect its scientific assets and align its operational practices with its clear thematic excellence.
With a Z-score of -0.978, Trakia University exhibits a very low rate of multiple affiliations, positioning it favorably against the national average of -0.068. This result reflects a commendable alignment with national standards, where risk signals are already low. The university's even lower score suggests a strong internal policy on affiliations, ensuring clarity and transparency. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the absence of any disproportionate rates at the institution indicates a low probability of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reinforcing a culture of straightforward academic collaboration.
The institution's Z-score of 0.070 places it at a medium risk level for retracted output, showing a moderate deviation from the low-risk national benchmark of -0.191. This suggests the university is more sensitive to factors leading to retractions than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible error correction, a rate that is notably higher than the country's average serves as an alert. It suggests that pre-publication quality control mechanisms may be facing systemic challenges, pointing to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture that warrants qualitative review by management to prevent recurring malpractice or methodological weaknesses.
Trakia University shows a Z-score of 0.388, which, while in the medium risk category, is significantly lower than the national average of 1.380. This indicates a differentiated management approach, where the institution successfully moderates a risk that appears more common across the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural to reflect ongoing research lines, but the university demonstrates better control in avoiding the creation of scientific 'echo chambers'. By maintaining a lower rate than its peers, it mitigates the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting its academic influence is less reliant on internal validation and more open to external scrutiny.
The university's Z-score of 2.627 represents a significant risk, a critical alert that amplifies a vulnerability already present at a medium level in the national system (Z-score of 0.691). This high score indicates that a substantial portion of the institution's scientific production is being channeled through media that fail to meet international ethical or quality standards. This practice exposes the institution to severe reputational damage and suggests an urgent need to implement robust information literacy and due diligence training for its researchers to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality publication channels.
With a Z-score of -1.117, the institution demonstrates a very low risk of hyper-authored output, effectively isolating itself from the medium-risk dynamics observed at the national level (Z-score of 0.149). This strong result points to a preventive and well-governed approach to authorship. The data suggests that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary, large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorships. This maintains clear individual accountability and transparency, which are cornerstones of research integrity.
Trakia University shows a Z-score of -0.040, a low-risk value that signals strong institutional resilience, especially when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.831. This result suggests that the university's scientific prestige is built upon its own structural capacity and intellectual leadership, rather than being overly dependent on external partners for impact. The minimal gap indicates that the institution's excellence metrics are a reflection of genuine internal capabilities, mitigating the systemic national risk of relying on exogenous prestige and ensuring a more sustainable model for long-term impact.
The institution's Z-score of -1.413 is in the very low-risk category, demonstrating consistency with, and even outperforming, the low-risk national standard of -0.770. The complete absence of signals related to hyperprolific authors is a positive indicator of a healthy research environment. It suggests a focus on the quality and substance of contributions over sheer volume, effectively avoiding risks such as coercive authorship, data fragmentation, or the assignment of authorship without meaningful participation. This reinforces a culture where the integrity of the scientific record is prioritized over the inflation of productivity metrics.
With a Z-score of 4.608, Trakia University shows a high exposure to risks associated with publishing in its own journals, a rate substantially higher than the national average of 1.113, even though both fall within the medium risk category. This excessive dependence on internal channels raises potential conflicts of interest, as the institution acts as both judge and party in the publication process. This high value warns of academic endogamy, where research might bypass rigorous, independent external peer review. This practice could limit the global visibility of its science and may indicate the use of these journals as 'fast tracks' to inflate academic records without standard competitive validation.
The university's Z-score for redundant output is 0.647, a medium-risk level that is slightly better than the national average of 0.832. This suggests a degree of differentiated management, where the institution moderates the risk of 'salami slicing' more effectively than many of its national peers. While the indicator shows that the practice of fragmenting studies into minimal publishable units to inflate productivity exists, the university's relative control helps ensure that the scientific record is not unduly burdened. This reflects a more balanced approach that, while not perfect, leans more towards generating significant new knowledge over simply increasing publication volume.
