Prof Dr Assen Zlatarov University

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Prof Dr Assen Zlatarov University presents a mixed integrity profile, with an overall score of 0.201 reflecting both significant strengths and critical areas for improvement. The institution demonstrates commendable governance in authorship practices, showing very low risk in hyperprolificacy, multiple affiliations, and the use of institutional journals, effectively insulating itself from some national risk trends. These strengths provide a solid foundation for its notable research capacity, particularly in its top-ranked national fields of Chemistry and Environmental Science, as evidenced by SCImago Institutions Rankings data. However, this positive outlook is challenged by significant risks in citation and publication patterns, specifically a high rate of institutional self-citation and elevated levels of redundant output and publications in discontinued journals. While the institution's specific mission was not available for this analysis, these identified vulnerabilities could undermine universal academic values of excellence and social responsibility by creating a perception of inflated impact and questionable research dissemination. A targeted strategic review of citation policies and publication quality control is therefore recommended to align its operational practices with its clear thematic strengths, ensuring long-term scientific credibility and impact.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution's Z-score of -1.604 is well below the national average of -0.068, indicating a very low-risk profile in this area. This demonstrates a clear and consistent approach to author affiliations that aligns with the low-risk national context. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, the institution's data shows no signs of strategic "affiliation shopping" or attempts to artificially inflate institutional credit, reflecting transparent and conventional collaboration practices.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of -0.221, the institution's rate of retracted output is statistically normal and almost identical to the national average of -0.191. This parity suggests that the institution's post-publication quality control mechanisms are functioning as expected within its scientific ecosystem. Retractions are complex events, and this low level indicates a healthy process of scientific correction rather than a systemic failure in pre-publication review or a vulnerability in its integrity culture.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution exhibits a Z-score of 4.382, a critical value that significantly surpasses the country's medium-risk score of 1.380. This result suggests that the university is not just following a national trend but is amplifying it, creating a pronounced risk. While some self-citation reflects focused research, this disproportionately high rate warns of a potential 'echo chamber' where work is validated internally without sufficient external scrutiny. This practice risks an endogamous inflation of impact, where the institution's perceived influence may be skewed by internal dynamics rather than recognized by the global scientific community, demanding an urgent review of citation practices.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution's Z-score of 1.410 for publications in discontinued journals is notably higher than the national average of 0.691, indicating a greater exposure to this risk compared to its peers. This medium-risk signal serves as a critical alert regarding the due diligence applied in selecting publication venues. A high proportion of output in such journals suggests that a significant part of the university's research is being channeled through media that may not meet international quality standards, exposing it to severe reputational damage and highlighting an urgent need for enhanced information literacy to avoid 'predatory' or low-quality publishing practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.110, the institution shows a low rate of hyper-authored publications, which contrasts favorably with the medium-risk national average of 0.149. This suggests the presence of robust institutional resilience and control mechanisms that effectively mitigate a risk prevalent in the country. The data indicates that the university successfully distinguishes between necessary large-scale collaboration and questionable practices like author list inflation or 'honorary' authorship, thereby upholding transparency and individual accountability in its research.

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

The institution's Z-score of -0.204 indicates a very balanced relationship between its overall impact and the impact of research it leads, a sign of institutional resilience when compared to the medium-risk national average of 0.831. A wide positive gap can signal a dependency on external partners for prestige. However, this low score suggests that the institution's scientific impact is structural and derives from genuine internal capacity, reflecting a sustainable model where it exercises intellectual leadership rather than relying on a strategic position in collaborations led by others.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.902 is very low and consistent with the national average of -0.770. This absence of risk signals indicates a healthy research environment where productivity levels are balanced and realistic. The data suggests that the institution is not exposed to risks associated with extreme publication volumes, such as coercive authorship or the assignment of credit without meaningful participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of the scientific record over the inflation of quantitative metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

With a Z-score of -0.268, the institution demonstrates a very low reliance on its own journals, a practice that isolates it from the medium-risk dynamics observed nationally (Z-score of 1.113). This indicates a strong, preventive governance model. By avoiding potential conflicts of interest and academic endogamy, the university ensures its research undergoes independent external peer review. This commitment to external validation enhances its global visibility and confirms that its output is assessed through standard, competitive channels rather than internal 'fast tracks'.

Rate of Redundant Output

The institution's Z-score of 2.197 for redundant output is significantly higher than the national average of 0.832, indicating a high exposure to this risk. This medium-risk alert points to the potential practice of 'salami slicing,' where a single study may be fragmented into minimal publishable units to artificially inflate publication counts. This practice not only overburdens the peer-review system but also distorts the scientific record, suggesting a need to reinforce policies that prioritize the communication of significant, coherent findings over sheer publication volume.